When I was a teenager, I think I might have been willing to trade no Christmas presents for never having to get up early Sunday and spend an hour listening to a boring sermon.
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
This little video gives power to the anti-religion preachers such as Richard Dawkins. The sad thing is he and the people he preaches to know so little about religion they are not able to discern when it's just plain insane people who use religion as a device for their insanity.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:When I was a teenager, I think I might have been willing to trade no Christmas presents for never having to get up early Sunday and spend an hour listening to a boring sermon.
What time did church start for you? See, I hear people complaining about having to get up early on Sunday and wonder, did they always have sunrise services or something? Because most churches I know have services around 11:00. Some might have 8:30 or even 8:00 am services but those churches almost always have two services, and there's a later one that follows which you can attend if you don't want to get up early.
What people mean when they say they don't want to get up early on Sunday, is not that church starts early, but that they would rather stay in bed and sleep until 10:00 or noon. I am almost 100% positive that the vast majority of kids don't have to attend church services on Sunday that start any earlier than they have to be at school on Monday-Friday.
My teenager complains about this, and it frustrates me. We have to be at church at 9:30. That's two and half hours later than the bus picks her up for school. She can sleep two hours later than normal and yet says that church starts "early". I wish I knew what happens to the space-time continum on Sundays that makes people think they need to sleep until half the day is gone.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Steev: This little video gives power to the anti-religion preachers such as Richard Dawkins. The sad thing is he and the people he preaches to know so little about religion they are not able to discern when it's just plain insane people who use religion as a device for their insanity.
So you're saying that the woman in the video is insane?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:When I was a teenager, I think I might have been willing to trade no Christmas presents for never having to get up early Sunday and spend an hour listening to a boring sermon.
What time did church start for you? See, I hear people complaining about having to get up early on Sunday and wonder, did they always have sunrise services or something? Because most churches I know have services around 11:00. Some might have 8:30 or even 8:00 am services but those churches almost always have two services, and there's a later one that follows which you can attend if you don't want to get up early.
What people mean when they say they don't want to get up early on Sunday, is not that church starts early, but that they would rather stay in bed and sleep until 10:00 or noon. I am almost 100% positive that the vast majority of kids don't have to attend church services on Sunday that start any earlier than they have to be at school on Monday-Friday.
My teenager complains about this, and it frustrates me. We have to be at church at 9:30. That's two and half hours later than the bus picks her up for school. She can sleep two hours later than normal and yet says that church starts "early". I wish I knew what happens to the space-time continum on Sundays that makes people think they need to sleep until half the day is gone.
It's not so much the actual time. Your teenager might not wake up any later if you didn't go to church.
BUT..the life of a teenager entails 5 days of adult supervision and 2 days to themselves. With church, it becomes 6 to 1.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Javert:
I don't think the mother in that video is typical of religious parents.
In fact, I'm not sure that the mother is religious at all. She says, "We have to start going to church every week!" like it's a solution for her son's atheism. This indicates that they weren't a church-going family before this event. Additionally, the ultimatum that only believers get presents at Christmas because (implied) that's what Jesus wants is...well, it's a rather childish view of what Christmas is about.
The fact that the son would videotape this and throw it up on the web indicates larger problems than atheism. The whole family has my pity. It must be difficult being forced to live with people you don't like very much.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:BUT..the life of a teenager entails 5 days of adult supervision and 2 days to themselves. With church, it becomes 6 to 1.
You are incorrect, at least about my teenager. My teenager's life is 7 days of adult supervision. I don't consider that my job of parenting and supervising my child is over because she's a teenager. She has much more freedom than the younger children - freedom to go places with friends, freedom to engage in activities the younger children can't like going to movies without me and staying at home by herself if I have to take the younger ones somewhere but even without church she would not have 2 days "unsupervised." She's still a minor in my care and my responsibility.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Sorry, just had to be said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not sufficiently.
*represses*
Posted by Steev (Member # 6805) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: So you're saying that the woman in the video is insane?
Yes, I am.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
*oof*
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Steev:
This little video gives power to the anti-religion preachers such as Richard Dawkins. The sad thing is he and the people he preaches to know so little about religion they are not able to discern when it's just plain insane people who use religion as a device for their insanity.
Have you read the books these 'anti-religion preachers' have written?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:BUT..the life of a teenager entails 5 days of adult supervision and 2 days to themselves. With church, it becomes 6 to 1.
You are incorrect, at least about my teenager. My teenager's life is 7 days of adult supervision. I don't consider that my job of parenting and supervising my child is over because she's a teenager. She has much more freedom than the younger children - freedom to go places with friends, freedom to engage in activities the younger children can't like going to movies without me and staying at home by herself if I have to take the younger ones somewhere but even without church she would not have 2 days "unsupervised." She's still a minor in my care and my responsibility.
Belle, I didn't mean litereally unsupervised. I was trying to find the right word to use, and hit on that.
Looking through the eyes of the teenager I once was, I think I can understand: "Monday thru Friday my parents are making me wake up and go to school. On Saturday and Sunday they don't do that." So in my mind, when I was a kid, my parents were waking me up and making me go somewhere on a day in which they shouldn't have.
Not saying it's right or wrong...that's just how I thought of it at the time.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My kids more often make it to synagogue on Saturday mornings than I do. And on Sundays, they usually have other scheduled things (Boy/Girl Scouts, library, etc.) to get up at a designated time for.
There is no inherent right to sleeping in two days a week.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Javert:
I don't think the mother in that video is typical of religious parents.
In fact, I'm not sure that the mother is religious at all. She says, "We have to start going to church every week!" like it's a solution for her son's atheism. This indicates that they weren't a church-going family before this event. Additionally, the ultimatum that only believers get presents at Christmas because (implied) that's what Jesus wants is...well, it's a rather childish view of what Christmas is about.
The fact that the son would videotape this and throw it up on the web indicates larger problems than atheism. The whole family has my pity. It must be difficult being forced to live with people you don't like very much.
I like this response. I'm sure that Scott and I have different opinions about atheism, but I like and agree with his analysis.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Scott as well. I didn't watch the whole video because the language in it was making me uncomfortable.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
I agree with Scott as well. I didn't watch the whole video because the language in it was making me uncomfortable.
FYI there isn't any offensive language beyond the first 5 seconds of the video. Plenty of unpleasant domestic vitriol though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's actually what I meant. I made it beyond the first few seconds, but the screechy spectacle of crappy parenting made me not want to watch anymore.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: There is no inherent right to sleeping in two days a week.
There should be!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In fact, I'm not sure that the mother is religious at all. She says, "We have to start going to church every week!" like it's a solution for her son's atheism.
I think this is either giving a lot more credit to religious people than is warranted or else using a much more exclusive definition than it common in some contexts.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: There is no inherent right to sleeping in two days a week.
I generally agree with this, but I also share Javert's sympathy for the kid, having been one myself not too long ago.
At 24, I've yet to tell my parents that I'm an atheist. They're not incredibly religious, but they are what I'd describe as the average Christian conservative. To be honest, I'm not sure there would be much of a point in telling them. They wouldn't understand, and it would just upset them greatly. I'm sure they wouldn't disown me, but it probably would put a strain on our relationship. My dad had a mini cow when he discovered how liberal I was, so I can imagine what the atheist conversation would be like:
"What what WHAT?! No more Christmas presents for you young man!!"
Seriously though, they've got enough stresses raising my teenage sister without that added burden.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think this is either giving a lot more credit to religious people than is warranted or else using a much more exclusive definition than it common in some contexts.
Anything is possible.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Coming out as an atheist was much easier than coming out as a bisexual. Maybe I was just lucky.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
This is what makes me despise most of religious practices. Because people feel like they can force others into believing what they believe, through force or any other method.
Religion is fine with me, politics is not, force is not, that kind of hatred is not.
Why I don't particularly love established churches.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know exactly what my family would do, because my brother made the same non-announcement.
My dad would say, "Well, fine." It is possible he'd roll his eyes. My grandmother would call to talk to me, but would stop talking if I said "I'm making my own decisions, Grandma."
And that would be it.
I know this because my family has actually concluded at least a couple of times that I have stopped going to church and was probably sleeping with my boyfriend, and that was their response. I have to say, that perception was incredibly frustrating to me. I do enough things in my life I'm not proud of - I don't want to be tagged with more than I deserve.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Why I don't particularly love established churches.
I hope that most atheists will realize that this woman doesn't represent any religion at all.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Why I don't particularly love established churches.
I hope that most atheists will realize that this woman doesn't represent any religion at all.
I don't think that is true. Most people in America tend to believe that certain behavior is indicative of the religion to which someone subscribes, especially if that person is vehement in their claim to have the religion. It happens all the time with Islam nowdays.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I hope that most atheists will realize that this woman doesn't represent any religion at all.
Why would you say that she doesn't represent any religion? How are you able to judge that from the information we have?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Does she say what church, specifically, they will start going to in an effort to fix that? What is the religion to which this mother subscribes?
It is fine to inveigh against organized religion, but what organized religion is the villian here?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Does she say what church, specifically, they will start going to in an effort to fix that? What is the religion to which this mother subscribes?
It is fine to inveigh against organized religion, but what organized religion is the villian here?
It doesn't say, but she does invoke the name of Jesus, so I would assume some form of Christianity.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I understand she is not a representative per say, but nonetheless a lot of children undoubtedly are going to have to practice something they do not believe or go through this, and this is common to all religions.
Islam is particularly vehement about this, and I determined this personally before all of the how to do in the middle east, and this is because their religious practices maintain that you cannot leave the Moslem faith.
Other religions are just as vehement, and I am merely responding as per the previous comment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am going to have to disagree that this woman does not represent religion. edit: This sentence sounds misleading, what I mean is she does represent Christianity insofar as she is a professed Christians and I think honestly believes she is.
But firstly,
I do not think the video is legitimate, what are the chances they (whoever that is) turned on the video camera JUST before the exchanged took place? What the son said, "I'm an atheist" and the sibling thought, "oh man! This will be good" <positions camera and hits record> In addition why does the video cut out at THAT point?
But assuming the video is legitimate. The womans response was a very common way to respond to such news. She did not take a moment to think about what she wanted to say, she spoke on her toes. She appealed to the strangeness of her Christian boy suddenly becoming an atheist. She appealed to materialism, "No more Christmas presents!" and she responded with a punishment that was not well thought out, "We are going to church once a week!" obviously hoping her son would see the error of his ways. Sounds much akin to sending a child into time out.
The woman IMO certainly does not represent a religion in that her actions and mindset were certainly not the ones Christianity espouses. But she does represent the behaviors that many self described Christians display.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Does she say what church, specifically, they will start going to in an effort to fix that? What is the religion to which this mother subscribes?
She is most likely Catholic, judging from the references she made.
quote:It is fine to inveigh against organized religion, but what organized religion is the villian here?
It is not the institution that is feared, it is the perceived mob that makes up the institution. Whether that is fair or not, it is what I believe is behind most statements regarding "organized religion" in most cases.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I thought on the site it mentioned Catholic...
one sec...
yes, it says Catholic.
And I understand and agree not all persons of that faith react that way.
Some of my (seriously) best friends are (sorry, sorry, sorry,) Catholic...
I live in a very religious little town, with a large percentage of the population being Catholic, Baptist, or LDS. That is why some of my best friends are in all these faiths, even though I adhere to none of them.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What references?
This is a sincere question. I minimize the amount of time I spend listening to unpleasant people, so what did she say that led you to conclude Catholic?
What do you mean by mob?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
I think its the belief that in large groups, i.e. organizations of any large scale, a groupthought can take over, and the ideals of that group can outweigh the common good of an individual outside that group.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think its the belief that in large groups, i.e. organizations of any large scale, a groupthought can take over, and the ideals of that group can outweigh the common good of an individual outside that group.
Am I correct in intrepreting this to mean you are opposed to organizations in general and not just religious ones?
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
No, I am saying that that is what people associate with a mob.
When extreme beliefs come into play, I think the groups actions become more aggressive, which IS what I disagree with,
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Am I correct in interepreting this to mean that you are opposed to organizations which are aggressive as a result of their extreme beliefs?
How are you defining extreme?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Most people in America tend to believe that certain behavior is indicative of the religion to which someone subscribes, especially if that person is vehement in their claim to have the religion. It happens all the time with Islam nowdays.
Do you believe that one believer's actions speak for everyone in that religion?
I do not.
quote:Why would you say that she doesn't represent any religion? How are you able to judge that from the information we have?
The woman says a few things that lead me to believe she is Catholic. I know a lot of Catholics, having lived in Italy for two years; I also know a lot of Catholics where I live now.
None of them would respond the way this woman did. Like I said, and that you apparently disagreed with, I do not think this woman's reaction is typical.
Further, I don't think she represents a religion because she implies that Church attendance has not been a regular part of their lives. One can (tentatively) be said to represent a faith when their commitment to that faith has been quantitatively demonstrated. By her own admission in regards to church attendance, she finds herself lacking.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What references?
This is a sincere question. I minimize the amount of time I spend listening to unpleasant people, so what did she say that led you to conclude Catholic?
She mentioned a Confirmation (ceremony) and brought up a conversation with a bishop. I think there may have been another reference mentioned, but I got the distinct impression of them using Catholic references. It doesn't make a difference in the long run what sect she belongs to, but the verbiage she used gave some clear indications.
quote:What do you mean by mob?
Because while the part that turns people off to the organizational aspect may hinge on what they feel is manipulation, the part that those and many areligious people actually fear is the large groups who are assumed to being manipulated. It is not always a very focused feeling, because it typically starts with a trust in the upper levels of the organization and finds foundation in fear of the organization as a whole.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Yes.
I think that most religious beliefs are very extreme, and that these groups religions undertake actions that individuals would normally consider wrong, (Crusades?) yet they undertake because the rest of their "group" thinks it needs to be done. Like the non-Mormon community in my town that has an almost hatred of the Mormon community.
I think extreme is the will to remove another's rights because of your beliefs that they do not share.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
She is catholic, according to the website.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I sorta think she didn't act so much like "a christian" so much as she acted like a "Freaked out and worried Mom."
I don't endorse her screaming and materialistic threats of course, but she seemed like a woman who was put in a situation she didn't expect from her child and didn't know what to do.
As far as the christian point of view goes, I have to imagine the idea that her child won't be joining her in heaven has to be devastating.
[ April 11, 2007, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Methodists and Anglicans both have both confirmation and bishops, so it's not a solid ID, depending on the other Catholic references.
quote:She is catholic, according to the website.
And there we have it - confirmation!
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
But I think the child would be just as worried that their family is ensconced in a lunacy (as religion often appears to outsiders) that THEY cannot escape.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:By her own admission in regards to church attendance, she finds herself lacking.
A large percentage of Catholics don't go to Church every week. I don't think it is accurate to say that they aren't really Catholics or that they don't represent the way many Catholics are.
---
And if you want to trade experiences, I grew up Catholic in a Catholic neighborhood, went to Catholic school for 12 years, and had friends declare that they were atheists/no longer Catholic to their parents and had their parents give similar, although less extreme, reactions.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Most people in America tend to believe that certain behavior is indicative of the religion to which someone subscribes, especially if that person is vehement in their claim to have the religion. It happens all the time with Islam nowdays.
Do you believe that one believer's actions speak for everyone in that religion?
I do not.
I do not either. What I do believe is that such a view does not spring whole from nothing. If enough purple polka dotted people punched you in the arm every time you met one, wouldn't you eventually begin to shield your arm when you saw a purple polka dotted person approaching?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Squicky:
:shrug:
Quantitatively, those are my reasons for not thinking she represents her religion. Qualitatively, her behavior is such that I don't think she represents her religion.
You disagree. I'm cool with that.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Methodists and Anglicans both have both confirmation and bishops, so it's not a solid ID, depending on the other Catholic references.
I think you are picking at nits here. Eastern Orthodox has both as well, and if I had to choose two it would have been Roman Catholic or Easter Orthodox as that family's religion, based just on that short conversation. I understand being defensive about it, but what I pointed out wasn't an indictment of Catholicism.
I missed the part on the page that mentioned it was a Catholic family before. Or maybe I didn't miss it totally and didn't realize that it affected my assessment without consciously recognizing it. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It is not always a very focused feeling, because it typically starts with a trust in the upper levels of the organization and finds foundation in fear of the organization as a whole.
Do you mean distrust? Or do you mean starting with trust that is subsequently disapointed?
quote:Because while the part that turns people off to the organizational aspect may hinge on what they feel is manipulation, the part that those and many areligious people actually fear is the large groups who are assumed to being manipulated.
Okay, this is where I'm not asking questions, because I have a vehement response to this. Religion is voluntary! It's totally voluntary! If you are an adult, then if you don't go to church, then (barring specialized circumstances) no one takes away your paycheck. No one locks you up. There may be some fallout from relationships, but the glory of being an adult is that you don't have to live your religion wholly or even in part unless you want to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I sorta think she didn't act so much like "a christian" so much as she acted like a "Freaked out and worried Mom."
I don't endorse her screaming and materialistic threats of course, but she seemed like a woman who was put in a situation she didn't expect from her child and didn't know what to do.
As far as the Christian point of view goes, I have to imagine the idea that her child won't be joining her in heaven has to be devastating.
What she said.
Is it wrong to go ahead and edit posts you are quoting for spelling, or even punctuation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think you are picking at nits here. Eastern Orthodox has both as well, and if I had to choose two it would have been Roman Catholic or Easter Orthodox as that family's religion, based just on that short conversation. I understand being defensive about it, but what I pointed out wasn't an indictment of Catholicism.
I missed the part on the page that mentioned it was a Catholic family before. Or maybe I didn't miss it totally and didn't realize that it affected my assessment without consciously recognizing it.
No, I was just giving more information and specifically left room for other Catholic-suggesting references that you said you might have heard but couldn't remember.
It's been confirmed, now.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Religion is voluntary! It's totally voluntary! If you are an adult, then if you don't go to church, then (barring specialized circumstances) no one takes away your paycheck. No one locks you up. There may be some fallout from relationships, but the glory of being an adult is that you don't have to live your religion wholly or even in part unless you want to.
None of that means that people aren't manipulated.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, it isn't wrong, but it isn't nice to mention that you're doing it. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What I do believe is that such a view does not spring whole from nothing. If enough purple polka dotted people punched you in the arm every time you met one, wouldn't you eventually begin to shield your arm when you saw a purple polka dotted person approaching?
I agree. But this speaks for a degree of personal, physical, conclusive experience which I don't think is realistic in most interactions with religious people.
Also, when they punched you, were you threatening them with a gamboozle? Because, really, you should know better than to approach a purple polka dotted person with a gamboozle. It's just common sense.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
But with children, they do not have a choice!
This is the greatest crime on this earth!
You are indoctrinating them into beliefs they may or may not have chosen given free will, and you are stealing their options away from them, and setting them into a groove that may cause them to be attacked, discriminated against, or any other such, or they may do that to others because of their religions!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Methodists and Anglicans both have both confirmation and bishops, so it's not a solid ID, depending on the other Catholic references.
I think you are picking at nits here. Eastern Orthodox has both as well, and if I had to choose two it would have been Roman Catholic or Easter Orthodox as that family's religion, based just on that short conversation. I understand being defensive about it, but what I pointed out wasn't an indictment of Catholicism.
I missed the part on the page that mentioned it was a Catholic family before. Or maybe I didn't miss it totally and didn't realize that it affected my assessment without consciously recognizing it.
Mormons have confirmation and bishops as well. The fact the boy was accused by his mother of saying anything to the Bishop at his confirmation, leads me to believe the family if they are catholic are converts, as the boy would not recollect much if he was born into the church.
Its still within the realm of reasonable possibility that these folks are Mormons.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People are subject to advertising every day that people spend millions of dollars magnopere tailoring to get money from someone. The entire world is filled with people trying to persuade each other to do things - usually spend money or time. I don't think religion is exempt from being one of the voices, but it is far from being particularly culpable and it is definitely still voluntary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The fact the boy was accused by his mother of saying anything to the Bishop at his confirmation, leads me to believe the family if they are catholic are converts, as the boy would not recollect much if he was born into the church.
Catholic confirmation happens after the age of reason - in many dioceses, after high school starts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:You are indoctrinating them into beliefs they may or may not have chosen given free will, and you are stealing their options away from them, and setting them into a groove that may cause them to be attacked, discriminated against, or any other such, or they may do that to others because of their religions!
Yep. Same for school, ballet lessons, and space camp. That's what parenting is - someone would be criminally negligent to do nothing to prepare their children for entrance into society - all the different societies. That's the obligations of being a parent.
I absolutely love being an adult. There is nothing about being a kid again that sounds appealing to me, and the lack of autonomy tops of list of things that suck about being 12. Having teenagers is difficult precisely because they are transitioning between childhood and adulthood. Once they are adults, though, it is up to the individual.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The fact the boy was accused by his mother of saying anything to the Bishop at his confirmation, leads me to believe the family if they are catholic are converts, as the boy would not recollect much if he was born into the church.
Catholic confirmation happens after the age of reason - in many dioceses, after high school starts.
I did not know this! Thanks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:People are subject to advertising every day that people spend millions of dollars magnopere tailoring to get money from someone. The entire world is filled with people trying to persuade each other to do things - usually spend money or time. I don't think religion is exempt from being one of the voices, but it is far from being particularly culpable and it is definitely still voluntary.
I agree. But you were taking issue with the idea of religions being manipulative (edit: not if it was okay that they were so).
---
I think a lot of the maniuplations that various people/organizations do are irresponsible and have a net negative effect. They often exist to discourage rational consideration, instill negative feelings in people, and/or reduce the control people exercise over their lives.
And the best ones make these things seem like it was all the person's idea.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think she mentioned that he was confirmed at age 15...
quote:But with children, they do not have a choice!
This is the greatest crime on this earth!
You are indoctrinating them into beliefs they may or may not have chosen given free will, and you are stealing their options away from them, and setting them into a groove that may cause them to be attacked, discriminated against, or any other such, or they may do that to others because of their religions!
Well, that's certainly one view of it.
Another, more plausible view is that parents are passing along something they value, that they feel will do the child good.
It's what parents do.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Is it wrong to go ahead and edit posts you are quoting for spelling, or even punctuation?
Ok ok... I went and spell checked my original post... jeez... (ya, I made 2 spelling errors.)
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:It is not always a very focused feeling, because it typically starts with a trust in the upper levels of the organization and finds foundation in fear of the organization as a whole.
Do you mean distrust? Or do you mean starting with trust that is subsequently disapointed?
I mean both, depending on circumstances. There is no single pattern. Issues with trust of the group or organization as a whole is usually what starts it, but in many different ways depending on circumstance.
quote:
quote:Because while the part that turns people off to the organizational aspect may hinge on what they feel is manipulation, the part that those and many areligious people actually fear is the large groups who are assumed to being manipulated.
Okay, this is where I'm not asking questions, because I have a vehement response to this. Religion is voluntary! It's totally voluntary!
If you believe that is true then you are ignoring, unaware of, or unwilling to attribute the value of having certain beliefs instilled upon you (general you) as a child. It is voluntary similar to how shaking someone's hand as a greeting is voluntary.
quote:If you are an adult, then if you don't go to church, then (barring specialized circumstances) no one takes away your paycheck. No one locks you up. There may be some fallout from relationships, but the glory of being an adult is that you don't have to live your religion wholly or even in part unless you want to.
You are arguing using unrelated points. Most people in the world belong to the faith of their parents or the predominant faith in where they grew up. It isn't a gun to the head, but it does affect how we view the world around us and how religion applies to it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Another, more plausible view is that parents are passing along something they value, that they feel will do the child good.
That's one view. Another, more nuanced view is that there are many different ways of doing things like this, some of which are generally positive in practice and effect and some of which are negative. It is not the general type of behavior itself, but rather the way that people engage in it that make the determination.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is no state religion. It is illegal to discriminate because of religion in the workplace. In practical terms, it is impossible to make a fellow adult go to church and especially impossible to make them be sincerely religious if they don't want to. It's voluntary.
Adults take responsibility for their own actions. If some adult is going to church and blames it on being manipulated, then they need to grow. Of course we are all products of our culture and upbringing, but we are not SOLELY products. Blaming other people for one's own actions is, funnily enough, the action of a child. Choose to go or not to go, but whatever you decide, take responsibility for it yourself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In practical terms, it is impossible to make a fellow adult go to church
That kind of depends on how you mean "make". You can use some pretty heavy manipulation (psychological or otherwise) to get them to go. This manipulation may be the only reason why they do go, against their will. Given enough control, you can even brainwash into wanting to go.
Realistically, we are generally talking more about matters of degree than a binary, yes or no situation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Brainwashing is a convenient fiction. There is no way to make someone a long-term faithful member of a church or religion unless they want to be.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
This is quickly tuning into a chicken or egg debate that will potentially escalate. I am not arguing for or against someone having religion, I was simply trying to clarify the basis for certain opinions to which I do not hold but understand fairly well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Adults take responsibility for their own actions. If some adult is going to church and blames it on being manipulated, then they need to grow. Of course we are all products of our culture and upbringing, but we are not SOLELY products. Blaming other people for one's own actions is, funnily enough, the action of a child. Choose to go or not to go, but whatever you decide, take responsibility for it yourself.
Ladies and Gentleman, I present you with The Milgram Experiment. 60% or so of people will kill someone if someone in a lab coat asks them to. Properly done, manipulation is much more effective than I think is being credited in this thread.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
With religion however, this is one of the most important, if not the most important factor in many of their lives ans shouldn't they be allowed to figure it out for themselves without having anyone tell them where to go and what to believe?
Morals, basic virtues and etc. I believe are outside of any religion, and I think these can be taught, but the theological structure should not be taught, but all available views should be presented, so that they may find what they feel is right.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That controlled experiment under specialized conditions is utterly irrelevant to the way human beings in real life choose to partipate or not participate in religions.
quote:With religion however, this is one of the most important, if not the most important factor in many of their lives ans shouldn't they be allowed to figure it out for themselves without having anyone tell them where to go and what to believe?
They can! As adults (again barring the few crazy outlying exceptions), they can choose for themselves what to believe and how or whether to participate.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
No, when the man in the robes who is worshipped by the child's parents tells them to believe it, they will do it, and anything else, because they feel they are expected to.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I gotta say, that video looks staged to me. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I think this particular event wasn't real.
That sort of reaction probably isn't ideal if you want your kid to change his mind, but I can understand why it might happen. That mother (or someone in a similar situation) probably believes her kid would go to hell now. That's a lot of strain to put on a parent, and I could see why it could cause someone to snap like that.
Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
This goes for adults as well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Brainwashing is a convenient fiction. There is no way to make someone a long-term faithful member of a church or religion unless they want to be.
kat, What is your basis for claiming this? Granted, I'm using brainwashing as the popular term for a loosely associated collection of methods that are used to instill long term beliefs in people against their will or at least without their consent, but, if we're talking about the same thing, what you are saying is counter to my experience in years of studying and experimenting in psychology and against the American Psychological association.
In more extreme cases, such as when used by cults, these methods have the exact effect you are saying that they don't. That is, turning people into long-term, faithful members of that cult/religion. So faithful, in fact, that they are willing to commit suicide, along with a host of other things at the direction of people in the cult.
If you are going to disagree that any of this exists, could you give you reasons for doing so?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As a Catholic (and even before) I:
...went to church more often than my parents (once I was able to go by myself).
...really, dearly treasure days where I don't have to get "up" and dressed at all. Mmmm, padding around in my jammies all day is bliss.
...make it to mass pretty much every week, but don't fret unduly or worry about the state of my soul if I don't.
...don't worry about the souls of other people who don't.
...am grateful that my parish has a 5:00pm Sunday mass and that they need me to sing at that one.
edit to add: Oh, and chose it myself without undue influence from my parents. Part of becoming an adult is to decide to accept or reject all sorts of things that you experienced as a child. I know a lot of "cradle Catholics" who have mananged to decide for themselves what they want.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:No, when the man in the robes who is worshipped by the child's parents tells them to believe it, they will do it, and anything else, because they feel they are expected to.
This goes for adults as well.
I don't know enough about child psychology to comment on this, and it messes with what the obligations and rights of parents are, but I know it doesn't apply to fully-actualized adults. Choosing what to believe, follow, and do with one's life is the fun part and the responsibility of being an adult.
quote:As adults (again barring the few crazy outlying exceptions), they can choose for themselves what to believe and how or whether to participate.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Morals, basic virtues and etc. I believe are outside of any religion, and I think these can be taught, but the theological structure should not be taught, but all available views should be presented, so that they may find what they feel is right.
It's just not going to happen, nor should it. We value what we know too highly to even be able to attempt to give equal footing to something that is, in our estimation, false.
I don't teach my kids that men and dinosaurs co-existed just so they can make a choice between Creationism and evolution. That would be false; I teach them the truth as much as I know how.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That controlled experiment under specialized conditions is utterly irrelevant to the way human beings in real life choose to partipate or not participate in religions.
Yes, and if our understanding of psychological manipulation stopped in the early 1960s, that might be a more trenchant criticism. However, there has been a huge body of work developed since then. I brought Milgram up as a vivid example of the type of power that skilled manipulators could control, not as a direct analog to contemporary real world manipulation.
For a layman friendly overview of the post 60s field, I'd recommend checking out Robert Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. (edit: fixed the link)
[ April 11, 2007, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: No, when the man in the robes who is worshipped by the child's parents tells them to believe it, they will do it, and anything else, because they feel they are expected to.
You clearly have never met my children. Or many others', who ask (as they should!) question after question. Of me, of their father, of their teachers . . .
Then again, there is no "man in the robes who is worshipped by their parents," but you knew that was hysterical hyperbole when you said it. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not remotely interested enough in this topic to do outside research. If you, however, would like to summarize the main points, that would be welcome.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Kmbboots, I certainly meant in no way to disparage Catholicism or Catholics, and I somewhat regret pointing out what seemed obvious indicators of a pointess observation in this case.
Katharina, I don't think that anyone is blaming things on one's childhood, but pointing out that it is not a choice that is made in such a black and white manner as you are arguing so vehemently. Human beings are not blank slates until we reach adulthood when it comes to matters of behavior, faith, and our most basic habits. All of it is learned through experience, emulation, and environment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Justa, I know it isn't black and white. That parents were Mormon has had incalcuable influence over my own religious choices. I know that upbrining has an effect. Our behavior is the result of many factors.
I still think, though, that on a Sunday morning when one is twenty-five, the decision to get up and go to church is ultimately up to the individual. Maybe free will is an illusion, but if it is, it is not because we have all been mass-hypnotized by one another. The decision to participate in a voluntary society must in the end come from oneself.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Kmbboots, I certainly meant in no way to disparage Catholicism or Catholics, and I somewhat regret pointing out what seemed obvious indicators of a pointess observation in this case.
Just to be clear, your pointing out she's Catholic in no way disparages Catholics in my mind. Plus, you were right, and it spawned an interesting exchange with BB - I had no idea there were LDS confirmations.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I am not remotely interested enough in this topic to do outside research. If you, however, would like to summarize the main points, that would be welcome.
I kinda already did. Manipulation can be much stronger than you especially seem to be crediting. Long term attitude change against people's will or against their consent is possible and has been demonstrated. Heck, hypnotic implantion can be surprisingly effective.
We've got a vast body of research that demonstrates these things. edit: I don't know that I can point you to a better source for examining this research than I already did.
---
I'm curious, if you don't know that much about the field, where are you getting the foundation to claim that brainwashing is a convenient fiction?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't teach my kids that men and dinosaurs co-existed just so they can make a choice between Creationism and evolution. That would be false; I teach them the truth as much as I know how.
But you do teach your kids, and that is what I was originally pointing out. Of course you teach your kids. You love them, you want them to grow in all ways, mind, body, and soul. It is an act of love, nurtuting and caring. I see no reason why anyone should feel justified in begrudging that.
But you (and others) do teach your kids. That is how they learn. That is how they begin to understand the world around them and how it works. There is nothing sinister in that. It just is.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dag--
There are LDS confirmations, but I think it's completely different from what Catholics engage in.
'Confirmation' in Mormonism, is an ordinance in which the newly baptised member (often a child of 8) is given the gift of the Holy Ghost and made a member of the Church.
Can you clarify what is meant by confirmation in Catholiscism? (I think the idea is similar, but not the procedure)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No disparagement taken. I agree that it is blurry. Parents do condition us. That is what parents do. Children aren't raised in a vaccuum. And not just about religion.
But children reject all sorts of stuff as they get older and form their own opinions. I honestly think that children are more likely to reject religion that is forced on them. I know a lot of Catholics who have.
MrSquicky, I think you are taking the Milgram experiment too far. It establishes what people are likely to do in a once-off, pressure situation. It doesn't really address what people decide to do or believe over the course of many years when the pressure is less focused.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Maybe free will is an illusion, but if it is, it is not because we have all been mass-hypnotized by one another.
As I've said, it is more complex than that. The choices aren't absolute free will versus no free will at all. I believe (and my study and research bear this out, in my opinion) that free will can be likened to a muscle. One's capacity for resisting external influences/manipulations can be developed or enervated. Also, specific types of manipulations can be countered by specific types of knowledge/training/personality factors.
But, to me, it is important to realize the immense effect external manipulation has in our society and that it is generally much greater than people want to credit.
It is our idea of unrestricted free will, of the fundamental attribution error that is the convenient fiction.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:For a layman friendly overview of the post 60s field, I'd recommend checking out Robert Cialdini's [ur=http://tinyurl.com/yt6qz4]Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion[/url].
The link doesn't come up for me when I type it into the address bar.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think what people meant about representing is that the woman represents Catholics but she is not representative of Catholics, sort of like you could send Cold Stone Steve Austin to represent America at a WWF match although most Americans are not very much like Cold Stone Steve Austin.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Kmbboots, I certainly meant in no way to disparage Catholicism or Catholics, and I somewhat regret pointing out what seemed obvious indicators of a pointess observation in this case.
Just to be clear, your pointing out she's Catholic in no way disparages Catholics in my mind. Plus, you were right, and it spawned an interesting exchange with BB - I had no idea there were LDS confirmations.
There are confirmations in many Protestant sects, from what I understand. Your original list of Methodist, Anglican, Orthodox, and Catholic all have a similar ceremony, whereas the other examples of confirmation I have heard about do not as closely resemble those. Also, I was under the impression that Mormon bishops are laymen, without the same type of authority that a Catholic bishop would hold.
I just didn't want you or kmmboots to think I was singling out Catholicism. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can you clarify what is meant by confirmation in Catholiscism?
I think you've got that backwards, Qaz. I at least, was saying that she is representative (this is displays characteristics/behavior that a significant subsection of religious people have) rather than a representative.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
So, let me see if I understand something. Do you believe that it is immoral to raise your child within your religion, even if a major part of your religion involves the need for individuals to question everything, and for true faith to be developed independently, and not as a result of parental influence?
IE, you teach your children what you believe, and involve them in your religious community, but at the same time, explicitly teach them that right now, they probably believe what you do because they are too young to have really questioned anything ... but when they are older, it will be their responsibility to develop their own faith (if any), independent of yours?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I thought it was going to be a text that I could read over immediately and continue the discussion.
Off the topic:
Linking to a book on Amazon isn't actually considered backing up one's point of view. You may as well not do it, because it doesn't really help clear anything up. I know you've got a thing about allowing people come to their own conclusions about your point of view, but doing this sort of thing undermines the dialog.
It's one of the quirks of participation in a virtual forum-- in my opinion, it is essential that evidence be readily provided to the wider audience at no cost. This reasoning is why bugmenot is so prevalent and such a useful tool.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So, let me see if I understand something. Do you believe that it is immoral to raise your child within your religion, even if a major part of your religion involves the need for individuals to question everything, and for true faith to be developed independently, and not as a result of parental influence?
IE, you teach your children what you believe, and involve them in your religious community, but at the same time, explicitly teach them that right now, they probably believe what you do because they are too young to have really questioned anything ... but when they are older, it will be their responsibility to develop their own faith (if any), independent of yours?
Yes, of course I do. I also kick puppies and push old ladies down in the street.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
One thing I have come to appreciate from Dag (and Matt) is that if someone really knows what they are talking about and knows the evidence to support it, then they can summarize the relevant points themselves and then defend their point of view taking that evidence into account.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: You may as well not do it, because it doesn't really help clear anything up. I know you've got a thing about allowing people come to their own conclusions about your point of view, but doing this sort of thing undermines the dialog.
I have no idea why you would say this. Could you explain your reasoning?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: So, let me see if I understand something. Do you believe that it is immoral to raise your child within your religion, even if a major part of your religion involves the need for individuals to question everything, and for true faith to be developed independently, and not as a result of parental influence?
IE, you teach your children what you believe, and involve them in your religious community, but at the same time, explicitly teach them that right now, they probably believe what you do because they are too young to have really questioned anything ... but when they are older, it will be their responsibility to develop their own faith (if any), independent of yours?
Who are you addressing this to? Any person from any background is going to say that the faith they grew up in requires them to come to that faith through examination and individual conclusion. Such statements should not preclude the influence of our childhoods on how we frame the questions we ask and interpret the answers we find. I have seen very little in the way of moral judgment with regard to that in this thread, more an acknowledgement that it exists and plays a significant role. Who called it immoral?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:As I've said, it is more complex than that. The choices aren't absolute free will versus no free will at all. I believe (and my study and research bear this out, in my opinion) that free will can be likened to a muscle. One's capacity for resisting external influences/manipulations can be developed or enervated. Also, specific types of manipulations can be countered by specific types of knowledge/training/personality factors.
I would like to point out that "One's capacity for resisting external influences/manipulations can be developed or enervated" says nothing about the concept of free will at all. but that discussion doesn't really belong in this thread.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Who are you addressing this to? Any person from any background is going to say that the faith they grew up in requires them to come to that faith through examination and individual conclusion. Such statements should not preclude the influence of our childhoods on how we frame the questions we ask and interpret the answers we find. I have seen very little in the way of moral judgment with regard to that in this thread, more an acknowledgement that it exists and plays a significant role. Who called it immoral?
Somebody explicitly said it was awful and terrible, though I don't think it was you. That sort of set the stage for many of the similarly-aligned opinions to sound like moral judgments. Were they not intended that way?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: You may as well not do it, because it doesn't really help clear anything up. I know you've got a thing about allowing people come to their own conclusions about your point of view, but doing this sort of thing undermines the dialog.
I infer this from your expressed reluctance to provide links on topics that you seem to feel have been discussed, such as here:
You have claimed in the past that it is the reader's responsibility to educate themselves on whether your position is valid or not, and have refused to provide links for your stance.
I think this is a difference in the way that we approach fora; I tend to feel like the way you go about this is not conducive to discussion.
Be that as it may, linking to a book on Amazon does exactly zilch to prop up your POV.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Puppy: I can't say. I just wanted to maintain I don't hold a moral judgment on it. That same conditioning we receive as children affects how we view authority figures and how we learn to socialize. Even in those years approaching adulthood, when rebellion and limit testing is prevalent, we are still basing those decisions off the framework we learned to associate life with. Even with religious conversion (to another religion or none at all) isn't instantaneous, and is still coloured by our lives prior to that questioning. I apply no moral compass to it because it is still an observational phenomonon with regard to how childhood affects out lives, not a predictive phenomenon. You can't look at a child and determine the choices they will make in the future. Only in extreme cases that are not indicative of any larger group or organization can we have an idea of how it affects that person later in life.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, Did I not provide links or refutations from commonly known things, like cults, to specific accusations made? I thought I did. Looking back, I'm sure I did. Every specific accusation, I answered with one of these. That was me talking about cults and the Milgram experiment and the fundamental attribute error, right?
When I have time, I may touch on some more experiments so that people can get a better idea of the background. And I provided a link to an external resource that is highly reputable and highly reviewed that also establishes what I was saying.
When I contrast this to what kat offered in support of her position: absolutely nothing, I'm not sure what I've done wrong.
It seems to me that you are expecting me to teach a course in social psychology to kat when I have absolutely no reason to expect that she'd listen to what I was saying in any way other than to look for things she thinks are flaws.
What is it you want me to do? I can (and have) easily address specfic claims, but the sort of broad ignorant statements that kat is making are another thing altogether.
---
Also, you are seriously mistating my positions both on the global warming thread and the other one that you are referencing. You make a habit of making false accusations at me and I don't appreciate it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I expect that those who invoke authoritative evidence for their opinions are able to both present the evidence and explain and defend why it is supportive.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I already did. Can you show me a specific claim you made that I didn't address?
I expect people who make definitive claims to be able to back up their statements. To me, that is basic intellectual integrity. Unfortunately that seems to be something that many on Hatrack don't share my views on.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I expect that those who invoke authoritative evidence for their opinions are able to both present the evidence and explain and defend why it is supportive.
You posted that you are unwilling to do research to argue a point yo made in this thread. That is an unreasonable expectation of you to demand of others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, it isn't. Those who invoke the authoritative evidence in support of their view should be able to present it, not tell everyone else to go look it up for them.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*gives everyone a hug before the screaming starts*
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
example: You said brainwashing is a convenient fiction. I answered this with a concrete refutation and asked where you got the idea. You then ignored the issue completely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you want to use an authoritative source of evidence to prove your point, Squick, then you should be able to present, summarize, and defend that evidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Another example, to establish the power of psychological manipulation, I linked to the Milgram experiment.
To support the idea that many people judge the effect of manipulation poorly, I linked to the fundamental attribution error.
To demonstrate that there is a whole body of research that supports what I am saying, I linked to a page for a popular press book that contains both a description of the book and a whole mess of reviews talking about the content of the book, many of which support what I am saying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
None of that was presenting, sumamrizing, or defending the evidence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...yeah it was. I presented a link to a summary of the information and specifically applied what it said to the point under discussion. And I refuted every specific claim you made.
Alternatively, have you presented, summarized, or defended anything that supports the definitive statements you made, despite being asked to multiple times?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *amused*
How is taunting condusive to the conversation?
You made a claim that brainwashing is a fiction. MrSquicky provided arguments that you are just saying that and provided examples. You may find the examples unconvincing, but you have made no attempt to support your original claim and have made it clear you have no wish to support that original claim with evidence. You state that MrSquicky must support his claim, but you are unwilling to support yours.
I can understand not believing his examples are worthwhile, but instead of posting parting shots at his posts while others actually argue finer points of validity, why not offer something substantial besides "I believe that is convenient fiction." in your posts? You are otherwise coming across as condescending and petty.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky doesn't have to support with evidence if he doesn't want to. If he does want to, though, he needs to be able to present, summarize, and defend the evidence.
Please, Justa, there have not be ad hominems or personal insults so far. I think it would be better if it stayed that way. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you are seriously mistating my positions both on the global warming thread and the other one that you are referencing. You make a habit of making false accusations at me and I don't appreciate it.
:shrug:
I think I've characterized you fairly in this thread.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
While I will admit that Squicky could've possibly done a better job at summarizing all those claims in his own words, it's true that you haven't backed up your point at all katharina. Why should the onus of proof be on him?
Though personally I respect Squicky's method of presenting information. I'd almost always prefer to read a wikipedia article or other linked information source, as it's usually more thorough.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Maybe that's a difference in preference? I don't - I am rarely interested enough to slog through an article to find what someone was referring to. Linking but not summarizing is functionally ineffective.
That's also why I don't generally hunt up for links of my own - I am interested in the conversation, but the research I save for when I am getting paid.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Puppy: So, let me see if I understand something. Do you believe that it is immoral to raise your child within your religion, even if a major part of your religion involves the need for individuals to question everything, and for true faith to be developed independently, and not as a result of parental influence?
IE, you teach your children what you believe, and involve them in your religious community, but at the same time, explicitly teach them that right now, they probably believe what you do because they are too young to have really questioned anything ... but when they are older, it will be their responsibility to develop their own faith (if any), independent of yours?
Forgive me for jumping in, but I thought this was a good question, and I'd like to take a stab at it.
I don't think what you've outlined above is immoral. It IS stacking the deck extremely heavily. From the time the child is born, a very large part of his/her world revolves around your religion. As they grow up, a large part of their context for understanding and relating to the world around them is shaped by religion. How many young adults, knowing that they could be ostracized by a substantial part, if not all, of that community would voluntarily choose to say they disbelieve? I'd like to think I'd be willing to risk it, but I'm really not sure.
I surely don't accuse anyone (here) of doing it purposefully, but it's a little like holding someone's childhood hostage. "As long as you maintain your belief, we'll maintain these ties to your childhood." Knowing the comforting value of early memories, I can only hazard guesses as to what it might be like for a person from a devout family and community coming to realize they don't share the faith.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Squicky doesn't have to support with evidence if he doesn't want to. If he does want to, though, he needs to be able to present, summarize, and defend the evidence.
Right, he doesn't have to if he doesn't want to, just like you don't want to. Right?
quote:Please, Justa, there have not be ad hominems or personal insults so far. I think it would be better if it stayed that way.
Excuse me? I have pointed out that your behavior is making things worse, not better. Deleting or editing the content of your posts to hide it does not excuse your behavior. Don't pin your poor behavior on me. You are the one taking potshots without once going back and adding depth to your dismissive assertion earlier. At least two others have, and plenty of people are offering a reasonable argument at some things MrSquicky has said. You continue to post glib one-liners and make no attempt to back up your assertion. That is your own choice, I have nothing to do with that behavior. I am simply pointing it out as unacceptable. If it was unacceptable when I engaged in it, then it should be equally unacceptable when you do.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was up for three seconds and I took it down. If you take down where you labeled me with derogatory terms, then that would be cool. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yeah, i do think it's a difference in preference...and i will admit that at times that method does detract from the flow of conversation. So it has it's pluses and minuses
but that's besides the point. Squicky at least provided a small basis for his assertion. I haven't seen any from your end yet.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
People are welcome to dismiss my assertions if they believe they need peer-reviewed evidence to be believed. I haven't invoked any authorities. Beyond myself, of course, but we are all doing that when we present out opinions.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I labelled you no deroggatory terms. I commented on the (dismissive without explanation) content and tenor of your your posts. I did not say you are anything, I said that your posts in this thread are making you seem that way. I did not say it for you to like it, I said it because your posts have done more to prevent discussion than they have to encourage discussion. My suggestion is that you stop trying to turn the effect of your behavior on others. Take it for what it's worth, but that is no more than what anyone has said to me previously when asking me to behave more productively.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. I have to admit I'm still not happy about the terms, but I acknowledge that you were describing what you saw as my behavior instead of me personally.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In a situation where you are pretty sure that the person isn't going to listen to what you said in any way other than to try to find flaws in it, I think linking to a complete account and explaining how you think the relevant parts apply is the best choice. In my view, the things I'm talking about are complex issues and are best served, especially before a hostile, actively ignorant audience, by presenting them in as full a context as possible.
Do people really think I need to summarize the entire Milgram experiment every time I bring it up? The idea makes no sense to me.
Likewise, I expect that it is common knowledge that cults utilize brainwashing techniques and that brainwashed cult members have committed suicide, so much so that I didn't feel any external verification of this (especially considering that kat never challenged what I said nor in fact mentioned the entire topic after I refuted her definite claim). Was I wrong?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, kat, I would appreciate it if you remain civil, much like you said you were going to. The taunting that Jutsa quoted is unwarranted and unproductive and I wish that you didn't feel a need to engage in it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think if someone invokes an authority to back up their assertions, they need to be able to explain the evidence and especially why it is currently relevant.
The other option is to not invoke the authority. That option is always available.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I interrupt this bickering for a response to the original post and video.
When I was a teen, I hated church. Didn't want anything to do with it. Hated going to mass on sunday, hated going to ccd, didn't want to be confirmed. I never claimed to be an atheist, I just didn't like going to church.
The reasons were various. We always went to a late mass on Sundays and I thought that wasted most of the day. I thought mass was boring. I didn't understand it. I didn't like what my religion was telling me. I didn't like doing things I didn't want to do.
At one point I told my mother I didn't want to be confirmed and didn't want to go to church anymore. She didn't yell, or swear at me like that woman did. She just told me, calmly, that if I wanted to keep living in her house, I would do what I was told to do. Or else I could leave. And I have no doubts that she would have kicked me out of the house had I decided to push my disagreement, on that issue or any other.
Is that fair? I don't know. And frankly I don't care. I've taken that stance with some issues with my step kids. My mother was boss, there was no arguing or negotiating on some things with her. And I see now, that was often a good thing and it helped shape me into who I am today.
So yes, I got confirmed and did my time in church until I was on my own and able to make my own decisions on religion. At which time, I left the church and didn't look back for 17 years. Now that I've come back, I am eternally grateful that my mother made me stick in there and get confirmed. I am eternally grateful that she laid a foundation of belief in my life, that I was able to touch that foundation and use it as a base for my return to God and my religion. As usual, my mother knew best. I really don't care how fair it was to me as a 16 year old kid. It wasn't my mother's job to be fair, it was her job to raise me as she thought was best. And that's exactly what I tell my step kids now.
As far as the family in the video goes, it is telling that she has to black mail her kid with christmas presents to get the kid to go to church. It's hard for a mother that doesn't set an example of action to enforce that action on her kids. She says that they're going to church every week from now on. If she wasn't going to church, wasn't setting that example, how can she expect her kid to not follow her example? If she's not strong in her faith, how does she expect her kid to be? Even though my mom forced me to do ccd and get confirmed, she did set an example and was active in her religion. Had she not, it would have been hard for her to force me to go. That's what this mom is fighting now.
As far as raising your kid in your religion, of course you're going to do so. If you believe in your religion, you want your kid to grow up in that. Do people really belong to a religion, and not teach their kids, bring them up in it? What's the point then? I can't imagine being catholic, not teaching my kid about being catholic, and just let them figure it out for themself. It's your duty as a parent to teach your kids about your beliefs, and about God. How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
Relativism at its finest.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think if someone invokes an authority to back up their assertions, they need to be able to explain the evidence and especially why it is currently relevant.
Which, as I've exaplained, is what I did. Are you planning on addressing my explanations?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't follow links. I didn't find the explanations to be relevant, thorough or convincing. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My parents didn't make or even encourage us to do anything about religion. Mom is Lutheran, Dad is Presbyterian. We have some Catholic relatives in our extended family.
Out of the six of us, four are active in our various churches. To are Catholic, one Methodist, one UCC.
I know many, many Irish guys who were brought up in a Catholic country by Catholic parents and they avoid religion altogether.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
The real question for me is, "Can you really claim to have faith yourself if you don't think it is worth teaching it to your children?"
Thanks for the response, Juxtapose. I agree that the way a person is raised, naturally, has a huge impact on the way they view the world, even as they become an adult. However, this isn't unique to religion. Raising your child without religion has effects of its own that are exactly as powerful as raising them with a particular one.
If, for instance, a child would someday have benefitted greatly from developing faith, but because of his upbringing, was never able to take any religion seriously, that would be an unnecessary obstacle generated by his upbringing, which is no more or less negative than an analogous religious upbringing might have been.
I think we all just need to recognize that no matter what, all children, as they age, have to deal with the fact that they were raised with certain assumptions that they may or may not naturally agree with, but that color their perceptions of the world regardless of whether they would like them to. It's just a natural part of getting older, and raising a child in a religion is not some unique thing that warps their life in some special and terrible way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't follow links. I didn't find the explanations to be relevant, thorough or convincing.
There is a huge difference between not liking the quality of something and saying that those things don't exist.
I would appreciate it if you kept this in mind.
---
edit: There is also a big difference between statign something about what someone said and engaging them on it, by, for example, explaning the specific problems you had.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
A link is not an explanation, and a name check is not a dissemination.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think there's a big difference between socially acceptable religions like Catholiscism and the groups we call cults.
I think that it's ridiculous to try and equate the psychological pressures put on normal Catholics by their religion and religious leaders, and the pressures put on, say, the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate folks.
It's true that manipulation is used in religions. It's also true that humans use manipulation all the time. It's only evil when we manipulate others with the intention to deceive or otherwise harm them. We call non-invasive, non-harmful, non-personality-threatening manipulation, "persuasion."
I've manipulated my children into accepting a bedtime of 8:00pm. Being children, they would naturally strain against such an "early" bedtime. I manipulate them to do what I want by making bedtime a pleasant time-- we read books, sing songs, and tell stories, and we play a little.
If they whine and fuss about bedtime, it becomes a less pleasant experience. Because we are consistent with our application of bedtime policies, the children know what to expect. There are no surprises-- as sure as the sun's gonna rise, Dad's going to read us a book, tell us a story, sing a song.
This is manipulation. And there's nothing wrong with it. It's acculturation.
It's parenting.
quote:Do people really think I need to summarize the entire Milgram experiment every time I bring it up?
No, but as kmboots and kat pointed out, the Milgram experiment doesn't translate well to their understanding of religion. So an explanation, by you, perhaps supported either by your own comments, or by comments that are readily available to your audience in the form of links, is in order.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:A link is not an explanation
A link of the type I provided is substantiation. I provided an explanation (edit: and a full explanation for those unaware of it) of why I thought they were relevant. If you personally have a problem with reading links, then we disagree. But that doesn't support a claim that I didn't substantiate what I said. I don't agree with what you want me to do is necessarily required of me, especially in light of the manner in which you seem to be discussing this.
---
edit: The Milgram experiment is, like many of the things I discuss, a complex thing. Proper understanding requires exposure to it in full. I don't think copying the whole link over isn't productive, nor necessarily legal. I see no problem in a case like this to link to it. Am I wrong in this, other people besides kat?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think a link to the Milgram experiment (for those not already familiar) makes more sense than explaining what it was in a post though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think that it's ridiculous to try and equate the psychological pressures put on normal Catholics by their religion and religious leaders, and the pressures put on, say, the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate folks.
Who did that?
---
quote:No, but as kmboots and kat pointed out, the Milgram experiment doesn't translate well to their understanding of religion. So an explanation, by you, perhaps supported either by your own comments, or by comments that are readily available to your audience in the form of links, is in order.
Then it is good that I didn't bring it up in direct reference to religion, but rather to establish the potential power of properly done manipulation, as I already have explained.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Clearly we disagree over the existence and quality of the evidence in your posts, Squicky. I don't see us coming to an agreement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As far as raising your kid in your religion, of course you're going to do so. If you believe in your religion, you want your kid to grow up in that. Do people really belong to a religion, and not teach their kids, bring them up in it? What's the point then? I can't imagine being catholic, not teaching my kid about being catholic, and just let them figure it out for themself. It's your duty as a parent to teach your kids about your beliefs, and about God. How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
As has been said, many people are not saying that this is a matter of doing or not doing it, but rather of how one does it. There responsible and irresponsible ways of raising your children inside a religion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Clearly we disagree over the quality of the evidence in your posts, Squicky. I don't see us coming to an agreement.
That doesn't bother me. I'm just trying to get you to stop repeating claims that I didn't do something which I in fact did.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, you didn't. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Yes he didn't. Or did.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: No, you didn't.
You are still doing it. Why do you do this? What is your objective when you engage others this way?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:I think that it's ridiculous to try and equate the psychological pressures put on normal Catholics by their religion and religious leaders, and the pressures put on, say, the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate folks.
Who did that?
The guy who posted these:
quote:I think that most religious beliefs are very extreme, and that these groups religions undertake actions that individuals would normally consider wrong, (Crusades?) yet they undertake because the rest of their "group" thinks it needs to be done. Like the non-Mormon community in my town that has an almost hatred of the Mormon community.
I think extreme is the will to remove another's rights because of your beliefs that they do not share.
quote:But with children, they do not have a choice!
This is the greatest crime on this earth!
You are indoctrinating them into beliefs they may or may not have chosen given free will, and you are stealing their options away from them, and setting them into a groove that may cause them to be attacked, discriminated against, or any other such, or they may do that to others because of their religions!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Aw, it's funny. The conversation has become a circle with no end. That's funny.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then I can't help you.
Edit: originally posted in response to MrSquicky saying something like "Dag, I don't see the connection."
Meaning is accurate, wording may not be precise.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Kat said:
quote: Adults take responsibility for their own actions. If some adult is going to church and blames it on being manipulated, then they need to grow. Of course we are all products of our culture and upbringing, but we are not SOLELY products. Blaming other people for one's own actions is, funnily enough, the action of a child. Choose to go or not to go, but whatever you decide, take responsibility for it yourself.
Squicky responded:
quote: Ladies and Gentleman, I present you with The Milgram Experiment. 60% or so of people will kill someone if someone in a lab coat asks them to. Properly done, manipulation is much more effective than I think is being credited in this thread.
You linked the [EDIT: manipulations in the ] Milgram experiment with religion.
I'm willing to grant that you didn't mean to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I deleted a comment about that said "Dag, I don't see the connection."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Aw, it's funny. The conversation has become a circle with no end. That's funny.
There are circles that end?
I guess that old folk song was nothing but a pack of lies.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, No, I didn't. I specifically said, in the part you quoted, what I was doing. Establishing that "manipulation is much more effective than I think is being credited in this thread".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: ---
quote:No, but as kmboots and kat pointed out, the Milgram experiment doesn't translate well to their understanding of religion. So an explanation, by you, perhaps supported either by your own comments, or by comments that are readily available to your audience in the form of links, is in order.
Then it is good that I didn't bring it up in direct reference to religion, but rather to establish the potential power of properly done manipulation, as I already have explained.
My problem with is (and I probably should have been more clear) is not the camparison to religion particularly, but rather the disparity between types of pressure. In the experiment, the pressure is intense, the subject had to make a fairly immediate decision, there is only the one outside influence. In making a decision about religion (or career choice, or who to marry etc) the pressure (if there is pressure) is long term but usually diffuse. There are other influences, the parent is not always present, the "subject" can take many years to decide - or never decide.
I don't think the Milgram experiment as I understand it is very relevant to the type of pressure parents put on their children in terms of long term life decisions.
Not that parental influence isn't significant. It is. It just isn't insurmountable (as I have noted anecdotally) or necessarily bad.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, When I get the time and have my materials, I'll try to present examples/explanations of how more subtle forms of manipulation work.
However, in this particular case, I was responding to a characterization of all manipulation as being much weaker than I believe is shown in Milgram, so I brought it up to specifically challenge this idea. Which I tried to make clear with the sentence following it.
There was no attempt to equate this with religion at all. Just like, when I brought up the cults, it was for the specific purpose that I said it was for and not to equate it to religion (like Scott accused me of and Dag is pretending wasn't clearly about what I said).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Establishing that "manipulation is much more effective than I think is being credited in this thread".
You tied manipulation to the Milgram experiment; since you were responding to kat's claim that adults can make choices about church attendance, it appeared that you were counter claiming that religious authority figures were manipulating adults to come to church, similar to the way that lab technicians were manipulating subjects to perform painful experiments against the subjects better judgment.
That's how I read it. Good to know I was wrong.
Right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Cool!
(Just for the record, I wasn't disputing that you had presented evidence. I was just discussing what you had presented.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, When you read what I write and you come up with an interpretation that makes what I said incredibly stupid, like you presented above, I would hope that you consider that, no matter what my faults, extreme stupidity isn't generally one of them.
---
Which reminds me (edit: because people were attributing incredibly stupid statements to me in the interpretation of what I said, not because I'm calling anyone stupid), I have to get back to that one abortion thread.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:You tied manipulation to the Milgram experiment; since you were responding to kat's claim that adults can make choices about church attendance, it appeared that you were counter claiming that religious authority figures were manipulating adults to come to church, similar to the way that lab technicians were manipulating subjects to perform painful experiments against the subjects better judgment.
The way I read it was not the Squick was making such a claim -- he was saying that he believes that such a manipulation is within the realm of possibility.
Of course, I'm sure he'll be along to clarify. If he hasn't already.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:As far as raising your kid in your religion, of course you're going to do so. If you believe in your religion, you want your kid to grow up in that. Do people really belong to a religion, and not teach their kids, bring them up in it? What's the point then? I can't imagine being catholic, not teaching my kid about being catholic, and just let them figure it out for themself. It's your duty as a parent to teach your kids about your beliefs, and about God. How can you expect them to have a faith if you don't?
As has been said, many people are not saying that this is a matter of doing or not doing it, but rather of how one does it. There responsible and irresponsible ways of raising your children inside a religion.
Such as?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
stihl!,
I think that the way a lot of parents force religion on their children is not only irresponsible, but counter-productive.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmmboots,
What do you see as the productive and unproductive ways of teaching religion?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: There are circles that end?
I guess that old folk song was nothing but a pack of lies.
You know the Riddle Song? I love that song!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
JT had kind of got what I was saying. Again, I wasn't reacting to the religious angle specifically, but rather making a statement about the wider point of how effective manipulation can really be by using one of the most vivid and familiar examples.
In a way, that is how JT saw it in that I was saying that psychological manipulation can result int this in a state where cooperation was completely voluntary just like kat had gone off on how religion is completely voluntary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I love that tune, but I don't like those words. I know much better words.
kat, I think that often-times people brought up with religion in a very rigid way (as many Catholics are) tend to end up being very good atheists. Or Catholics who haven't ever really deeply considered their faith.
I, as I have mentioned, am a catechist for our RCIA program (adults converting to Catholicism.) Over and over I hear from sponsors (sponsors attend the classes as well) who have been raised Catholic that they hadn't really thought much about it until the class. This certainly isn't universal or even "most", but I think it does happen a lot.
I think that religion is (at least it is for me) a very personal journey. Parents can point the way, give directions, provide their children with maps and compasses, teach them how to find their own way. Dragging someone along the path, though, seems to defeat the purpose.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kate, I am interested in what you mean by a rigid way. What does that mean? Can you give some examples of methods of teaching religion that you consider to be too rigid? What's preferred instead?
I think we can all agree on general principles, but I'm curious as to what specific actions you consider to be effective or ineffective.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: kate, I am interested in what you mean by a rigid way. What does that mean? Can you give some examples of methods of teaching religion that you consider to be too rigid? What's preferred instead?
I think we can all agree on general principles, but I'm curious as to what specific actions you consider to be effective or ineffective.
My two cents: Any teaching which says that if you don't believe in it you will burn for eternity in hell is too rigid.
Just my personal opinion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
After a certain age (different, I suppose for different children) forcing a child to participate at all.
If we consider a child at the age of reason to be sufficiently mature to confirm his or her faith, he or she should be sufficiently mature to decide against it.
edit to add: I also think that giving the impression that there is only one right way is a bad thing, but that is more of a reflection of how I view religion than a question of effectiveness. Though, presumably, the kid is going to be exposed to other traditions at some point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Javert,
Are you saying that the only acceptable religious teaching is one that says that no matter what you believe, the end result is the same? Is the phrase "burn in hell" necessary, or is it any idea that believers will go to a different place than nonbelievers?
In that case, it isn't the method of teaching that is considered unproductive - it is the tenets of the religion itself. That's an entirely different argument.
quote:After a certain age (different, I suppose for different children) forcing a child to participate at all.
If we consider a child at the age of reason to be sufficiently mature to confirm his or her faith, he or she should be sufficiently mature to decide against it.
Thank you. This is very specific.
I think this is a good idea. The age might depend on the parents, but I think it is a good idea to give kids the freedom to decide whether or not to go while they are still living in the house, so the parents can be around when the decision is being made, so to speak.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Javert,
Are you saying that the only acceptable religious teaching is one that says that no matter what you believe, the end result is the same? Is the phrase "burn in hell" necessary, or is it any idea that believers will go to a different place than nonbelievers?
In that case, it isn't the method of teaching that is considered unproductive - it is the tenets of the religion itself. That's an entirely different argument.
You're right. But when the tenets of a religion eliminate the possibility of considering another or no religion because you will be punished in some way for it, then the two subjects intertwine.
Maybe if every religious teaching was followed by the phrase: 'But I could be wrong.' it would be better?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Could this win for the most posts within a 24 hour period?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:When you read what I write and you come up with an interpretation that makes what I said incredibly stupid, like you presented above, I would hope that you consider that, no matter what my faults, extreme stupidity isn't generally one of them.
GIGANTIC PET PEEVE.
Person 1: "Statement that seems to indicate a certain thing, which is dumb."
Person 2: "Refutation of that dumb thing."
Person 1: "How dare you interpret my statement that way? I'm insulted. You should assume that when I say something, and it sounds dumb, you must be interpreting it wrong, and I must have actually meant something else, which was brilliant."
How is Person 2 supposed to divine what Person 1 "really" meant in time to avoid offending him? And if this happens a lot with Person 1, shouldn't Person 1 begin to suspect that the problem is with his ability to communicate his ideas, and not with other people's comprehension skills?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Every time?
What if a parent shares, when the kid is old enough to understand, their own stories of how they came to believe what they believe? What if they include, along with the tenets of the religion, an instruction that every person should find out for themselves if the religion is true? The quest to consider the question carries the inherent possibility that the answer will be negative. Does that satisfy?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not even close.
[Aw, carp. That was SUPPOSED to be to brojack, and I didn't get back to this thread until now. I'm afraid to even look to see how it was taken. >_<
phew! Thanks, Dags!]
[ April 11, 2007, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you mean, rivka?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think rivka was responding to "Could this win for the most posts within a 24 hour period?"
Edit: I think this because I typed "Not even close" into the reply box as soon as I read that, then noticed rivka's comment.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Every time?
What if a parent shares, when the kid is old enough to understand, their own stories of how they came to believe what they believe? What if they include, along with the tenets of the religion, an instruction that every person should find out for themselves if the religion is true? The quest to consider the question carries the inherent possibility that the answer will be negative. Does that satisfy?
That sounds fine. I hope the majority of parents do that.
I think the important thing is to teach a child how to think, and not necessarily what to think.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that makes sense. What would win that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, Where did you get the idea that I was offended? I'm just mentioning that intrepretations of what I said that are very stupid are quite likely not what I was saying.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think the important thing is to teach a child how to think, and not necessarily what to think.
I think this is true, but it is more of a continuum than an either/or. The style of teaching that is appropriate depends a great deal on the stage of development of the kid.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Every time?
What if a parent shares, when the kid is old enough to understand, their own stories of how they came to believe what they believe? What if they include, along with the tenets of the religion, an instruction that every person should find out for themselves if the religion is true? The quest to consider the question carries the inherent possibility that the answer will be negative. Does that satisfy?
It doesn't sound like that is honestly asking someone to weigh the possibilities or actually question what they believe in an evenly weighted manner. Nor do I believe, despite possible protestations to the contrary, that this is a common practice. Asking a person to weigh the case of their beliefs and stacking one side of that case with a short lifetime of doctrine, practice, and context of one possibility is not normally going to yield much more than the confirmation of what is already assumed. It sounds too similar to how a child may relay a story often with themselves as the positive character because that is how they can relate to things that happen around them. It isn't that the child is intentionally lying in relaying their story or making their case, it is that you cannot realistically assume that a child is going to be aware enough to relay to you all sides of a story that might involve numerous perspectives that are not always corroberating.
Also, please let's not use the "Faith A requires as a part of accepting the faith that the person has considered fully the possibility that Faith B through Faith Z are actually true, so Faith A is completely voluntary" argument here. Such a claim is ultimately insulting to those who are not the same faith as the one you claim has that practice. All faiths make that claim. Some even have a whole period where a youth is reaquired to explicitly examine alternatives, and return of their own choice. That simply seems to me a roundabout way of stating that your faith is better than others, that it passes some litmus test others do not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Justa, you are then arguing the tenets of the religion being taught instead of the method. That's an entirely different argument.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
JNN, children do not usually think that their parents are always right. At least after the age of two. If teaching a child that there are other beliefs, religions, traditions and that they should explore them isn't sufficiently not forcing your religious beliefs on them, what would you suggest?
I think that suggesting (if I am reading you correctly) that people who teach this to their children are being insincere does border on insulting.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Katharina: I am not arguing that. That is too broad a thing to argue. Religion is not something that is taught to children in closed sessions. It begins with examples and stories, and evolves to causes and effects, then grows to doctrine and practices, and during that whole time with most faiths a significant amount of activity goes on with other members of that same faith under the auspices that everyone is present there due to their shared faith. It is a constant reinforcement of that faith on many levels. That is the whole point of congregation in any religion, is it not? Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism. . . we all assemble because we want to study together, pray together, learn together, uplift each other, support each other, and bolster each other's faith as we would hope they do for us.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: JNN, children do not usually think that their parents are always right. At least after the age of two. If teaching a child that there are other beliefs, religions, traditions and that they should explore them isn't sufficiently not forcing your religious beliefs on them, what would you suggest?
I am not suggesting anything. I am simply saying that it is and not making a judgment of it. Such things are necessary for passing on our culture, our personal history, our ways and practices. I haven't been making a judgment of it, I have been saying that it exists and that it is significant in relation to the decisions we make later in life. It doesn't dictate, and I have already pointed out that there are only predictors in very extreme cases (like abuse, heavy neglect, etc.).
We never again in our lives learn the way we do when we are children, and we can never really remove ourselves from the perspective in which our lives have given us. We can append, adjust, expand, or rebuild how we view the world, but it will always start from how we learned to do it early on. That does not mean that it is always necessarily our parents who eventually give us our largest impression of the world, and barring living in isolation I would say that it is never only the parents who do so. We don't have to agree with our influences in order to be influenced by them, but in a majority of the cases regarding specific topics like religion, it turns out that we often do.
quote:I think that suggesting (if I am reading you correctly) that people who teach this to their children are being insincere does border on insulting.
That is not what I said. I don't think it is incincere. I said that it simply is. There are good things and there are bad things, but neither give what I am talking about the value of good or bad because of it. What Scott R mentioned regarding his kids sounds good to me, an example of bad could be passing on of harmful and untrue rhetoric regarding people of another country, faith, social class, or other normally opposing group. Much behavior, when reinforced through contant and extended repetition, will eventually colour a person's view, child and adult alike. Whether it is good or bad is not a judgment I am trying to make. I am only trying to establish that it exists.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...I see.
I do think that there are parents who genuinely want their children to make their own choices, though.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Puppy, I think the part that's problematic for me is the ostracization. While that kind of treatment is certainly not a given for a person de-converting, I would guess that it is a common occurance. To contrast, I played soccer throughout my childhood. When I was in high school, I decided that I wasn't really getting a whole lot of satisfaction out of it anymore and decided to quit. My life, except that I had a few more free hours during the week, didn't change substantially. Nobody thought I was a bad person.
Now, I recognize the difference between a serious religious commitment and an after-school activity. My point is, if part of the doctrine of your religion is the encouragement of free thinking, it's a hypocrisy to socially punish those who leave the church. Judging from the way you write, I wouldn't think you do that, but I'd have a hard time believing it doesn't happen regularly.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
A parent's job is to pass on their values to their children. That includes religion. If you hold your faith to be important, are active in your faith and trust and believe, you should pass that on to your kid. If you value it, you would want your children to do so as well. And religion is more than just belief in God. It's also culture, shared experience, community, etc. Just like a parent would want to pass on their ethnic background, they would and should want to pass on their religion.
I do NOT think that it's a parent's job to instruct their children on comparative religions. Especially if you believe in a certain faith. Why would you? If you believe your faith, your religion, why would you teach your kid to believe in another religion? As a catholic, if I had kids of my own, they would be raised catholic and I would stress to them the importance of being catholic. I certainly wouldn't want them to become baptist or luthern or any other religion that I don't consider to be true.
As far as forcing your kid to participate in religion, it's the best thing my mother did. As a teenager, I certainly did NOT know what was best for me faith-wise. I frankly didn't have that maturity until much later in life, and when I figured it out I came full circle back to what I was born with. Kids don't want to do things that are hard, or listen to stuff that is contrary to popular culture. Kids make dumb choices. Kids make choices that are easy, make them happy in the short term, and don't consider long term consequences. If I hadn't been forced to go to church and participate by my mother, I wouldn't have had the foundation I have now and known where to go when the time came to make that choice.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ah...I see.
I do think that there are parents who genuinely want their children to make their own choices, though.
I think most parents do. I thought I implied as much in what I said. I don't think that it is a reasonable thing to expect the influences from when a child grows up to be equitable to making an unweighted choice. Even if the parents themselves actively try to introduce and exhibit as many different variations of something like faith, it is probably impossible to cover all of the bases, and could arguably introduce an instability in the child's life that could be harmful later on. Besides, with the constant increase in communications technology (there was no internet when I was a child), the number of influences on any given person as they grow is exponentially higher today and will continue to increase. That is why I am not suggesting anything or making a moral judgment. Personally, I feel it is necessary and natural, and intellectually it is just something that exists in the framework it does because that is how we learn to associate and make sense of the world: first as an individual, then as a family (or similar group), and finally as a community or society. I know that there is much focus today on selling the idea that we are all special and unique individuals, but there are certain aspects to our development and methods of relating to the world that are heavily influenced by things outside of who we are as individuals, and that should not be marginalized or ignored. It isn't a method for making excuses. It is a method for understanding how and why someone else can have a view of the world that might seem so foreign and alien to your own.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Oh my, what happened to this thread? I was only gone a few hours...
Very interesting read, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
stilh1,
I think that it is a parent's job to raise human beings capable of forming their own good values.
I love being Catholic. I think it has amazing things to offer. I don't think it right for everyone. I would be delighted if my hypothetical child found what I find in it. I would also be delighted if he or she became a happy Methodist or even a happy agnostic and would support that. Just as my parents have supported me.
That being said, there are some religious choices that would concern me. Religions where one is not encouraged to think for oneself would be a choice that would cause me concern.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*blushes at allowing something like WORK to distract her*
*points up to edits*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As far as forcing your kid to participate in religion, it's the best thing my mother did. As a teenager, I certainly did NOT know what was best for me faith-wise.
But as an adult, you do?
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: As far as forcing your kid to participate in religion, it's the best thing my mother did. As a teenager, I certainly did NOT know what was best for me faith-wise.
But as an adult, you do?
Yes.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: stilh1,
I think that it is a parent's job to raise human beings capable of forming their own good values.
I love being Catholic. I think it has amazing things to offer. I don't think it right for everyone. I would be delighted if my hypothetical child found what I find in it. I would also be delighted if he or she became a happy Methodist or even a happy agnostic and would support that. Just as my parents have supported me.
That being said, there are some religious choices that would concern me. Religions where one is not encouraged to think for oneself would be a choice that would cause me concern.
I would agree, that as long as the kid was at least on the right track, and not fallen into certain religions I believe to be dangerous, I would be supportive. If, that is, the other choice was not being religious at all. My preferecnce would be for the religion they were raised in.
IMO, it's my job as a parent to begin their religious education in the religion I participated and believed in. You don't wait for the kid to grow older before you begin instructing them on anything else, so they can decide whether or not they want to learn. You send them to school at the minimum age. And when they kick and scream about that, you make them go to school because it's not only necessary, but good for them to go and learn even if they don't want to. It's the same with religion.
And faith isn't just a personal choice of what to believe. For many people, it's a part of their culture and background and ethnicity as well. The Jewish people intertwind their beliefs with their culture, and their faith bleeds into other aspects of their lives. It's an inseperable part of their families and culture. Most Jewish people would shudder to think of raising their kid without raising them in their religion.
Same goes for Muslims. You certainly won't find Muslims raising their kids without instructing them on their religion. And you're probably not going to get a comparative religion class in a muslim family. Yet no one questions that.
Would anyone suggest to a muslim or a jew that they should make efforts to raise their kids exposing them to every religion, and raise them to believe it's okay no matter what you believe, just as long as you're happy? I think if you did, in some cases, you wouldn't even get a discussion about it.
Yet in those religions, the very same, if not more strict, attitude toward ingraining those religions into your children exist. Like I said, you often cannot seperate religion from culture or family in those religions. So why then, is it okay to suggest that in a christian household that if parents want to raise their kids within a religion, make it part of the culture and family life, you're being unfair?
It's not unfair. A parent has every right to raise their kid as part of their culture and family life. I do not agree nor believe it is wrong or unfair to raise your children in a christian home with a specific christian religion and want your children to be part of that and continue on with that religion.
IMO, the fact that parents don't pass along a religious family life, and leave it up to the kid, is why so many people in our culture today don't understand religion, don't know what to believe. And if they don't know what to believe, or even where to start, they are most likely not going to try. Nor even think they even need to try to discern a belief. And I'm not sure, as a parent, I would feel good about believing in a religion, and not raising a child to believe in anything, or leaving it up to them if they feel like it.
BTW, this isn't aimed at km, just using her post as a spring board.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Most Jewish people would shudder to think of raising their kid without raising them in their religion.
Sadly, this is patently false. The majority of Jews, especially in this country, are raised with very little in the way of religion.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
But what religion should they be raised with? Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: But what religion should they be raised with?
Whatever their parents chose.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: There is no inherent right to sleeping in two days a week.
There should be!
Seconded. *yawn* Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Oh, that makes sense. What would win that?
"Good ... OSC" was incindiary, but for a true explosion, I'd back OSC's post on the other side inviting people to submit names for an Ender book.
Let me go see.
---
Ah, well, looks like it was deleted. But I seem to remember 15+ pages in the first day. Getting to be the one with The Name = priceless. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Same goes for Muslims. You certainly won't find Muslims raising their kids without instructing them on their religion. And you're probably not going to get a comparative religion class in a muslim family. Yet no one questions that.
Prove that no one questions this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
This one, CT? I thought I remembered as many pages as you did, but it looks like it only hit 5 pages in the first 24 hours.
Maybe it just SEEMED like 15 with some of the really long posts. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No way!
The subjectivity of memory.
And I couldn't find it, either ... in two pages of threads. *sigh
Haven't been firing on full cylinders this morning.
Well, what about "Good ... OSC"? If that one was 15 pages, I'll quit speech altogether.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No that one was ridiculous. I want to say 30 pages.
[Edit: 19. 7 pages in the first 24 hours. Interesting that memory tends to inflate those figures.]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Wow. I had them completely backwards.
Just goes to show. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Same goes for Muslims. You certainly won't find Muslims raising their kids without instructing them on their religion. And you're probably not going to get a comparative religion class in a muslim family. Yet no one questions that.
Prove that no one questions this.
Show me where someone questioned how muslims raise their children in this thread.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Adding qualifiers now? Your logic in your last post seems to be:
A) Jewish religion is heavily intertwined with culture, background, and tradition B) Muslims heavily educate their children in Islam without exposure to other religions C) No one questions either of these D) Thus Christians should be able to do this without questions either
First, it would seem irrelevant to your logic whether someone criticizes how Muslims bring up their kids in this thread or outside, as long as someone does in fact criticize it.
Second,
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: But with children, they do not have a choice!
This is the greatest crime on this earth!
You are indoctrinating them into beliefs they may or may not have chosen given free will, and you are stealing their options away from them ...
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
edit: this is in response to stihl1:
I certainly could find Muslims who don't "instruct" kids in their religion. I knew a couple kids in high school whose parents were Islamic, yet they had been given a choice from an early age and had stopped practicing when they were around 16.
Are you trying to say that because you think Muslims would raise their kids without introducing the possibility of believing something different from their parents, other people should behave the same way?
quote:IMO, the fact that parents don't pass along a religious family life, and leave it up to the kid, is why so many people in our culture today don't understand religion, don't know what to believe. And if they don't know what to believe, or even where to start, they are most likely not going to try. Nor even think they even need to try to discern a belief. And I'm not sure, as a parent, I would feel good about believing in a religion, and not raising a child to believe in anything, or leaving it up to them if they feel like it.
I don't know anybody who doesn't try to discern what they believe in, who doesn't evaluate the possibilities that society places before them, even if they decide that "agnostic" best represents their position.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: No way!
The subjectivity of memory.
And I couldn't find it, either ... in two pages of threads. *sigh
Haven't been firing on full cylinders this morning.
Well, what about "Good ... OSC"? If that one was 15 pages, I'll quit speech altogether.
That was my guess, but I thought for sure some of the old-timers* could best it.
*'Old-timers', in this case, refers to the length of hatrack membership and not to chronological age. Especially with CT and rivka, who are both in their early 20s.
>_> <_<
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*removes JT's nose and lips from her person*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: That was my guess, but I thought for sure some of the old-timers* could best it.
*'Old-timers', in this case, refers to the length of hatrack membership and not to chronological age. Especially with CT and rivka, who are both in their early 20s.
>_> <_<
52 if I'm a day, sonny.
My top two votes at this point would be "Good ... OSC" and Thor's early sonata, named something like "OSC, I challenge thee" (First Edition: SS did a Second Edition that was quite sweet).
Who knows, though, given the wrenching fits my brain gives memory.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Adding qualifiers now? Your logic in your last post seems to be:
A) Jewish religion is heavily intertwined with culture, background, and tradition B) Muslims heavily educate their children in Islam without exposure to other religions C) No one questions either of these D) Thus Christians should be able to do this without questions either
First, it would seem irrelevant to your logic whether someone criticizes how Muslims bring up their kids in this thread or outside, as long as someone does in fact criticize it.
Second,
I was pointing out that the discussion has revolved around christians bringing their kids up in their own religion. No one questioned Jews or Muslims for doing so. Why? Jews and Muslims have their faith intertwined with their culture. I know Christians who have the very same thing. I was raised catholic, my whole family was catholic, most of our family friends were catholic, our religion was very much part of our lives. And my parents chose to raise me that way. Which I am grateful for.
Parents do not have to give their kids a comparitive religion course, nor should they. They should give their kids the kind of culture, family, and religious life they chose. Muslims do it, Jews do it, there is no reason why Christians shouldn't also be able to do it.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: But with children, they do not have a choice!
This is the greatest crime on this earth!
You are indoctrinating them into beliefs they may or may not have chosen given free will, and you are stealing their options away from them ...
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Children don't get to chose what kind of culture or family they get to be raised in. And parents shouldn't be required to raise their kids in a family democracy. If a parent decided to raise them in their religion, that's all a part of it. If a kid doesn't want to be in that religion when they grow up, they have the choice to do so. Children don't get those choices, the parents do.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think "Good . . . OSC" was the fastest growing that I personally recall. Some of the posthumous baptism threads took off pretty fast, as did some other religion-related threads.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: edit: this is in response to stihl1:
I certainly could find Muslims who don't "instruct" kids in their religion. I knew a couple kids in high school whose parents were Islamic, yet they had been given a choice from an early age and had stopped practicing when they were around 16.
Are you trying to say that because you think Muslims would raise their kids without introducing the possibility of believing something different from their parents, other people should behave the same way?
No, I'm trying to say that Christians shouldn't be criticized for raising their kids in their religions if they chose so. Especially if you're not going to criticize other religions for the same thing.
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:IMO, the fact that parents don't pass along a religious family life, and leave it up to the kid, is why so many people in our culture today don't understand religion, don't know what to believe. And if they don't know what to believe, or even where to start, they are most likely not going to try. Nor even think they even need to try to discern a belief. And I'm not sure, as a parent, I would feel good about believing in a religion, and not raising a child to believe in anything, or leaving it up to them if they feel like it.
I don't know anybody who doesn't try to discern what they believe in, who doesn't evaluate the possibilities that society places before them, even if they decide that "agnostic" best represents their position.
I do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm afraid I know too many. And far too many who have rejected religion altogether because they had it forced on them at an early age.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have to admit that rejecting religion because it was forced on one at a early age sounds an awfully like blaming one's parents for things that an adult ought to take responsibility for. If someone decides that faith is not for them, a mature approach would be to accept responsibility for that and stop blaming the parents. It's like blaming one's messy house on being forced to clean one's room as a kid. It sounds ridiculous coming from anyone over 25.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I see it as a reason, not necessarily an excuse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Even as a reason, it sounds juvenile to me. Adults evaluate the world and come to their own conclusions, not react (either to cleave to the religion or sever ties) based solely or even primarily on what their parents said.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Same goes for Muslims. You certainly won't find Muslims raising their kids without instructing them on their religion. And you're probably not going to get a comparative religion class in a muslim family. Yet no one questions that.
Prove that no one questions this.
Show me where someone questioned how muslims raise their children in this thread.
Show me where anyone here is telling anyone else how to raise their kids first.
We get it, stihl1, you don't like Muslims. That doesn't mean you have to make up wild guesses about them. Typical Muslim life growing up is no different than anyone else. You've now gotten Jews and Muslims wrong, I urge you to please cease making assumptions.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have to admit that rejecting religion because it was forced on one at a early age sounds an awfully like blaming one's parents for things that an adult ought to take responsibility for.
It isn't necessarily a conscious thing for some people (I'm not talking about myself, here; I was raised in an atheistic household). It's just part of the equation underneath the surface.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Kat, I really do think that people are influenced, for good or ill, by the experiences that they have had.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
kmbboots: I would say for good and for bad. It's not an excuse we can look at and say "that is why," but it can offer perspective to those who are looking to evaluate their perception of the world and ask "Why?" of themselves. I do not find it particularly useful for evaluating others without clear consent and full cooperation (hence it does not make a valid excuse in court, for example).
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I have to admit that rejecting religion because it was forced on one at a early age sounds an awfully like blaming one's parents for things that an adult ought to take responsibility for.
It isn't necessarily a conscious thing for some people (I'm not talking about myself, here; I was raised in an atheistic household). It's just part of the equation underneath the surface.
That is a very good way of putting it. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Adults evaluate the world and come to their own conclusions, not react (either to cleave to the religion or sever ties) based solely or even primarily on what their parents said.
I think you are interpreting this rejection as necessarily a conscious thing, which isn't what I think boots is talking about.
On the opposite side of the coin, the vast majority of people remain in the religion that their parents raised them in. If we can assume that many of them haven't really explored other options is this also juvenile?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that people blame their parents for giving them a bad experience and depriving them of religion. Certainly as adults they can seek out religion if that is what they want to do.
I do think that bad childhood experiences with religion are likely to discourage adults from wanting more of it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: ... No one questioned Jews or Muslims for doing so. Why? Jews and Muslims have their faith intertwined with their culture.
quote: Especially if you're not going to criticize other religions for the same thing.
You're completely missing the point of my post. Let me try re-phrasing it. I'm not bringing up the quote by RunningBear because I expect you to agree with it. I'm bringing it up because you're making a claim in your logic which is pretty false to someone that has been paying any attention in this thread.
You're claiming that people haven't been criticizing other religions for indoctrinating their children. The problem is that this claim is provably false whether inside this thread or outside the thread in real life. There *are* plenty of people that *have been* criticizing them, both in this thread and outside, including RunningBear in this thread.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that people blame their parents for giving them a bad experience and depriving them of religion. Certainly as adults they can seek out religion if that is what they want to do.
I know some who do. But it's most often in instances where the parents rejected (or ignored) the same religion their children returned to.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: ... No one questioned Jews or Muslims for doing so. Why? Jews and Muslims have their faith intertwined with their culture.
quote: Especially if you're not going to criticize other religions for the same thing.
You're completely missing the point of my post. Let me try re-phrasing it. I'm not bringing up the quote by RunningBear because I expect you to agree with it. I'm bringing it up because you're making a claim in your logic which is pretty false to someone that has been paying any attention in this thread.
You're claiming that people haven't been criticizing other religions for indoctrinating their children. The problem is that this claim is provably false whether inside this thread or outside the thread in real life. There *are* plenty of people that *have been* criticizing them, both in this thread and outside, including RunningBear in this thread.
Where does anyone specifically criticize muslims, jews, or other religions that are cultural based, other than christian, in this thread? No where. The thread has mostly focused on christians raising their kids in their religion, and some people have claimed it's sooooo bad and it's a horrible shame that those parents don't give their kids a wider perspective instead of 'indoctrinating' them in their religion.
I used the muslim and jewish examples to show that in those cultures, religion isn't something seperate. It's not a choice. My point is, that applies to christians too. My catholic religion was just as much a part of my cultural, ethinic, family experience as a muslim, jew, hindu, whatever. It's not a choice that parents can't approach for fear of indoctrination or skewing their childrens minds. It's not a choice in muslim families, it's not a choice in jewish families, it's not a choice in christian families either. It's part of the whole family cultural ethnic value moral system ANY parent has a right to raise their kids in.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
We get it, stihl1, you don't like Muslims. That doesn't mean you have to make up wild guesses about them. Typical Muslim life growing up is no different than anyone else. You've now gotten Jews and Muslims wrong, I urge you to please cease making assumptions.
You're so far off and clueless it made me laugh out loud.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I used the muslim and jewish examples to show that in those cultures, religion isn't something seperate. It's not a choice.
Of course it is. As I alluded before, there are many Jews who raise their kids culturally Jewish, but not religiously. I know some people who were raised Muslim more as a question of culture than religion (relatively common in the US; probably not so much so in countries where Islam is the majority religion). And there are plenty of people who are culturally Catholic (for example) but don't do much religiously.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:I used the muslim and jewish examples to show that in those cultures, religion isn't something seperate. It's not a choice.
Of course it is. As I alluded before, there are many Jews who raise their kids culturally Jewish, but not religiously. I know some people who were raised Muslim more as a question of culture than religion (relatively common in the US; probably not so much so in countries where Islam is the majority religion). And there are plenty of people who are culturally Catholic (for example) but don't do much religiously.
And for every one of those examples, I can show you examples that support my side. Big deal. It doesn't change my point that parents have every right to raise their kids how they see fit, including religion wise. For some, it's not a seprateable choice.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:It doesn't change my point that parents have every right to raise their kids how they see fit, including religion wise.
I agree with that, for the most part. However, I disagree with the tone you have used throughout this thread, and I think your "supporting facts" aren't.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I agree with rivka. You are displaying an extreme amount of what seems to be asserting opinion as fact, stihl1. Considering there are people on this forum who have grown up in Jewish and Muslim communities, for example, your comments are at best disdainful and at worst dangerously warped. Comments like the following are not only attempting to insult as a debate tactic, but clearly show that you are unwilling to actually provide supporting data when your dubious claims are challenged.
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: You're so far off and clueless it made me laugh out loud.
You finding it funny proves nothing. Please explain how rivka and I are "so far off" in pointing out that neither Jewish nor Muslim families are as you have portrayed them with regard to passing on religion. When the facts of people who might have more experience than you do contradict the sweeping generalizations you have made about the whole of other religions or cultures, you have responded with "big deal" as your argument. Are you trying to dialogue with other people or are you dictating to them what you think they should believe? If the former, then you have to work on your technique. If the latter, then please see the TOS about disparaging other religious beliefs.
No one has told anyone else how to raise their children. You are arguing against something no one is debating.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: No one has told anyone else how to raise their children. You are arguing against something no one is debating.
That is not entirely true. RunningBear's posts are pretty strongly in that direction.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Then he can rail at RunningBear instead of trying to paint the entire conversation as an argument against Christian parents. The only thing he has contributed are a few insulting statements about cultures he obviously has little understanding of.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Then he can rail at RunningBear instead of trying to paint the entire conversation as an argument against Christian parents.
That would show much better aim, I agree.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Same goes for Muslims. You certainly won't find Muslims raising their kids without instructing them on their religion. And you're probably not going to get a comparative religion class in a muslim family. Yet no one questions that.[/QB]
Just as a matter of record, at least one of the kids in my world religions class in high school was Muslim.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It doesn't change my point that parents have every right to raise their kids how they see fit, including religion wise.
This is not actually true. I believe it would be illegal to give children psychedelic drugs, for example, which is required for some religions' worship. It would certainly be illegal to have sex with children, even for a religious rite. It would similarly be illegal to beat children in the name of religious purity, which you can find quite a few examples of. RunningBear and I just want to draw the line a little closer to sanity.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
King of Men, whose definition of sanity are you using? The last time I checked, there was no baseline for sanity regarding whether someone holds religious beliefs or not.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
So, I finally watched this video. Wow...I don't see how it could've been staged, nobody writes dialogue like that.
As for the debate...my head's spinning. No argument here "old bean" and all that. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The thread has mostly focused on christians raising their kids in their religion
I'm sure pretty I was talking about religions and religious people. I was not aware that I was focusing on Christians. Do you automatically assume that people talking about generalized religion are really talking about Christians?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Kat, I really do think that people are influenced, for good or ill, by the experiences that they have had.
So do I. I also think that adults ultimately choose their own lives instead of just rebelling in general against what their parents did. We are ALL influenced by the experiences we have had, but ultimately the decision to get a hold a job, or have a successful relationship, or go to jail, or become a musician comes from the person.
In my total opinion of course: Rejecting religion because your parents forced you to go is lame. It is like growing your hair just because your mother doesn't like it. I think it's a very understable phase - like the hair thing - but if someone stops there then they are stuck in the mindset of a rebellious teenager. It is many things (not all of them bad), but it is neither adult nor mature.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, As has been said, people are not talking about this rejection as anything like a conscious decision. Saying "I'm not going to do this just becausemy parents made me do it when they could." isn't a mature thing, but that is by no means a exhaustive representation of what is being talked about.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with your take on this extreme case, but I think we would like you to consider the other, less simplistic ones that we are talking about.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am sorry that you don't understand what I'm saying, Squicky.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, i'll again ask you to try to treat me with if not respect, then at least civility.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am utterly sincere. I am sorry that there is such a miscommunication here and that my posts have been so misunderstood by you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You'll forgive me my mistaking your intentions, but what you said comes off as very passive agressive to me.
Could I ask you to explain how you think what you've posted answers what I said? What am I missing?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your post was inappropriate as a follow-up to mine, in that it did not follow the thread I was speaking of and expressed a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I find this unfortunate, because it stifles conversation and I regret it occurred because I would like to have a converstaion with kmboots or other people who do seem to understand what I'm saying without another Squicky-goes-meta conversation occurring.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, that would be a no, then?
I think you may find, although goodness know I could be wrong, that I understood boots better here than you did.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I will happy to rejoin when the conversation takes another turn. I find the current focus and your patronizing distasteful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm sorry I am not expressing myself very well. MrSqicky is getting my point though.
I am not talking here about people who rebel against religion because they are trying to get back at their parents for making them go or who want to reject their parents' values or even people who stay away from religion just to prove their independence.
I'm sure there are those people and, I agree, they should grow up and make their own choices.
What I am talking about are the many people that I know who, despite the fact that they have healthy relationships with their parents, are of the opinion that religion is repressive, wrong-headed, restricting, discouraging of free thought and otherwise harmful. It isn't that they really deep down want it, but refuse to admit. They don't want it because they have experienced religion's bad effects.
Many of my friends are Irish. When many of them were growing up in Ireland, the Catholic Church was very powerful and pretty repressive. They didn't have much choice about religion; it permeated the culture. Most of them are astonished that I choose to be Catholic. They see it as something one does because there isn't a choice rather than something worthwhile. Very few of them attend mass.
I think that, for some people, being forced to follow someone else's pattern for a relationship with God contributes to that bad opinion of religion. Religion, for me is both communal and deeply personal. It couldn't, for me, be dictated.
For some it can. I also know a lot of people who grow up in a certain tradition without ever thinking about or knowing "why" certain things are the way they are. They are not particularly bothered by this. And that is fine. I have seen many of them have their faith deepened, though, by going through catechism with people who are finding their own path.
I know this rambles, but I hope it helps.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I am not talking here about people who rebel against religion because they are trying to get back at their parents for making them go or who want to reject their parents' values or even people who stay away from religion just to prove their independence.
I'm sure there are those people and, I agree, they should grow up and make their own choices.
kmboots, I was talking about those people, of whom I know or have known several. Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
quote:I have seen many of them have their faith deepened, though, by going through catechism with people who are finding their own path.
So have I. The most fantastic part of my mission was when I was in Ann Arbor. We were teaching mostly Asians who were there for graduate school with their families, and most of them came from an atheistic background. It was an amazing and wonderful experience teaching them the very basics - about the existence of God, how to pray, and the importance of the Savior. I certainly came to understand it better than I ever had before and a great deal of my testimony was born then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...so you are not saying that the people I am talking about should grow up, you are talking about a different "set" of people altogether. I read you as disagreeing with my point about the counter productive nature of forcing religion on children. That was where I was mistaken.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: Where does anyone specifically criticize muslims, jews, or other religions that are cultural based, other than christian, in this thread? No where. The thread has mostly focused on christians raising their kids in their religion ... It's not a choice in muslim families, it's not a choice in jewish families, it's not a choice in christian families either.
A) RunningBear (And MrSquicky I see) are criticizing *religion* in general, which happens to include Judaism and Islam. Why would he need to specifically enumerate every one of the 4200 or so types of religion when he is talking in general? When you say something like "I like steak" do you always enumerate every single steakhouse and friend or relative that has ever cooked you a steak?
B) You're generalising from this thread to *everywhere* which is a huge logical hole. There are plenty of examples of people criticizing Muslims in specific in how they raise their kids. Extreme examples in that recent suicide bomber thread on Hatrack and there are moderate examples on the Richard Dawkins page (linked on the very first post of this very thread!) especially around 9/11 that focus specifically on Muslims and how they raise their children.
C) How could you possibly claim that it is not a choice. Many people in this very thread *are* Christian and they have said that they themselves were given a choice or would give a choice. Same with Judaism.
Its especially odd that you would claim that there is no choice on a forum that was founded by OSC, a science fiction writer. One of the best science fiction writers was Isaac Asimov, who was raised by Orthodox Jewish parents who *did not* force their beliefs on him.
quote: Isaac Asimov was a Humanist and a rationalist.[7] He did not oppose religious conviction in others, but he frequently railed against superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs which tried to pass themselves off as genuine science. During his childhood, his father and mother observed Orthodox Jewish traditions, though not as stringently as they had in Petrovichi, and they did not force these beliefs upon Asimov. Thus he grew up without strong religious influences, coming to believe that the Bible represented Hebrew mythology in the same way that the Iliad recorded Greek mythology. ... In his last autobiographical book, Asimov wrote, "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul."
I think it depends on what forcing religion on children means. Much of religion involves the family - do you consider, say, having familly prayer, going to church together, making family trips to various signifigant sites (Isreal for Jews, Mecca for Muslims, Nauvoo and Palmyra and SLC for Mormons) and resolving issues within the context of the religion to be forcing? I don't consider any of that to be a bad idea and I actually think that (except for maybe the vacations part) they are all things that if omitted the parent would be negligent.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:kmboots, I was talking about those people, of whom I know or have known several.
I think you may be doing at least some of these people a disservice in assuming that they don't have more compicated reasons for not chosing religion (or a particular religion).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think whether those things are "forcing" is largely dependent on how the kid feels about it and how it is presented.
I think that when a child is old enough to opt out of family activities (can stay at home by himself or at a friends house etc. while his parents are at church for example) he should be allowed to do that. I think he should be respectful while the family prays, but not made to participate. (How can someone be forced to pray without getting the wrong idea of prayer?)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots, I was thinking. What do you consider to be forcing religion on children? How do you distinguish between forcing religion on children and teaching the religion?
In other words, where's the dividing line?
I think there isn't any dividing line in the beginning, because the difference between forcing and teaching is only apparent in how the parents handles the hard questions and their kid's possible dissatisfaction. In other words, I don't think anything is forcing until a parent refuses to take questions seriously or disrespects their children when they do start to explore the religion on their own.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd say, for example, tying Christmas presents or other material rewards would be considered forcing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots:
We were both writing at the same time.
I think we have the same idea, although I think it's possible that I think that kind of autonomy should be given later. Staying home from church if they want - about 16. Do not have to participate in family prayer - about 12, although they should still have to be there and be respectful of everyone else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, I would place those ages much younger. Probably half those ages. Again, coming to the "age of reason" example. If, for example, you are old enough to confirm your baptismal vows, you should be considered old enough to decide not to confirm them. If you are old enough to understand and want communion, you are old enough to decide you don't want it.
I think the woman in the video was forcing. And I think it is likely (assuming it is geniune) to have a result that is opposite of what she seems to want.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree that the woman in the video is terrible. I couldn't even stand to watch it because I hate seeing somebody doing something badly, and I think she was parenting horribly. It was like watching a particularly awful American Idol tryout - I shut it off in sheer embarrassment for her.
I think the age is something parents figure out on a case-by-case basis. I remember trying innumerable times to skip out on family prayer, and it was usually because I was comfy, reading, and annoyed with my brothers. None of that was a religious disinclination, and I'm glad my parents did not accept my reluctance as a good excuse. I'm glad that parents have the leeway to decide when to enforce and when to not, so the ages are really a guideline and it depends on the kid.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that parents have to do some discernment when it comes to what is religious disinclination and what is just laziness. I do think, though, that being too rigid can sometimes turn laziness into disinclination by making religion into a chore.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Doesn't that count for everything, though? I mean, school certainly seemed like a chore some (most) days. Maybe if it is ONLY represented as a joyless chore, but then, that's not very good parenting either. Maybe instead of making it solely up the kid (especially when they are still quite young) just making sure there are as many good experiences as obligatory ones.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Katharina, the hajj is not made as a family trip.
Also, "forcing" religion (not my chosen words, and in my opinion an insufficient description) is not usually an active process but a passive one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't know what the hajj is. That's the trip to Mecca, right?
What do you consider to be forcing religion?
I do NOT consider any of the following to be forcing: 1) believing in the religion fervently 2) planning family involvement in the religion 3) involving the religion in the family discourse 4) acting as if the religion is true 5) hoping that all of the children will be faithful members of the religion all their lives 6) being dissapointed if a child does not follow the religion and expressing that dissapointment
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I absolutely had to get confirmed, at about age 12 or 13. I didn't want to and my mom made me. I didn't, and still don't, think that was very productive, as all it did was make me resentful of the process and unreceptive to anything presented to me. If she had waited and not pushed it, I may have decided to get confirmed on my own. At the time I was on the fence about the whole religion thing and could have come down either way.
That, of course, is not the only reason I'm not religious now. There are much better, more thought out, reasons, but at the time insisting on my getting confirmed was a push away from the church.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I never accused anyone of forcing anything, and I refuse to debate using that word. It is insufficient and a defensive term that does not describe what happens. A better term would be influencing, but that is putting the usage lightly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is somewhat true, but not entirely. I think that students for whom school is a chore are likely to get less out of it. They are still somewhat likely to get enough out of it to function in society which they wouldn't very well if they were never taught to read or do math.
Religion is both more personal and less essential to being able to function in society. This does not mean less important.
edit: this is in response to kat's question about school. I'm slow.
[ April 13, 2007, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Going back to comments of the first page, I find it quite interesting that in some (most?) places you actually have to "come out" as an atheist- something that is quite different from my experience.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Hmm... In my family, we do the following,
1) Constantly and openly wonder about how in the world supposedly intelligent people can believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and other, related, non-existent, "all powerful" entities
2) Make plans to visit all known atheist sites near our vacation points, and avoid going to all churches (unless they're really nice, architecturally...)
3) Constantly talk about the total non-existence of God or any other deity
4) Act morally, but otherwise live our lives with the understanding that there is no uber-father waiting in the sky for us.
5) hoping that all of our children will grow up to realize that there's enough to worry about in the world, and enough wonder in the world, without having to invoke some all-powerful being to either keep them in line or lavish praise on for such an otherwise fascinating world.
6) being disappointed if a child actually expresses a religious belief, and expressing that disappointment vocally
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I absolutely had to get confirmed, at about age 12 or 13. I didn't want to and my mom made me.
That sucks.
I think that's a good example of what kmbboots has been talking about.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I absolutely had to get confirmed, at about age 12 or 13. I didn't want to and my mom made me. I didn't, and still don't, think that was very productive, as all it did was make me resentful of the process and unreceptive to anything presented to me. If she had waited and not pushed it, I may have decided to get confirmed on my own. At the time I was on the fence about the whole religion thing and could have come down either way.
That, of course, is not the only reason I'm not religious now. There are much better, more thought out, reasons, but at the time insisting on my getting confirmed was a push away from the church.
I had a similar experience regarding Seminary. At around 13 I told my parents I didn't really have any faith in their specific church. They insisted I still go to Church, participate in Mutual, and do all the regular family stuff. I didn't find the requirement to go to Church and family stuff to really be forcing, at that point it seemed more like being part of the family. It really bothered me that I had to go to Mutual, but I went. Then I turned 14 and was required to go to Seminary. I was told I had no choice in such things. Many, many, many scenes like the one in the video ensued. It became a power struggle and eventually I refused to do any of it. I was grounded for months and had my dad wake up at the time Seminary started with him loudly singing church songs at me, just to make sure I didn't get the benefit of sleeping in from missing Seminary. All of that just made me feel more sure of myself. Eventually my parents relented and just let me be.
Today I consider myself agnostic/atheist for reasons completely unrelated to parents or rebellion. But I strongly suspect that if my parents had not been so forceful and made everything in to a power struggle, my life would have taken a very different path. I would not have had the experiences that have led me to my current beliefs. I likely would have had more positive experiences in regards to religion. I even think it's likely I would have "returned to the flock" at some point. This is my past, it's not something that angers me anymore, but I think it's important to recognize how events change the paths of our lives.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along.
And there we disagree. I think parents have an obligation to equip their children to be able to make deep choices as adults.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't disagree with that. I think they should do both and are remiss if they do not.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along.
I do not know how many times I need to explain this: I have never said it is wrong. I have said that it exists and that it is natural. Nothing more.
By the way:
quote:I don't know what the hajj is. That's the trip to Mecca, right?
Earlier you (katharina) asked a question to the effect of what if a religion required the person to evaluate possibilities of other religions being "true" and coming to their conclusions themselves. Regardless of the religion you were asking about, can you say that you personally evaluated other religions and came to your own conclusion? The hajj is a pretty significant part of Islam, given great meaning though not absolutely necessary. I would find it difficult to believe that someone has given full consideration of Islam without being absolutely sure of what the hajj means.
This displays what I have been saying from the beginning. Someone can hear of a belief different or even opposite to their own. That person can consider it, think on it, possibly even meditate or pray on it. That still does not mean they have viewed it from the purview of the individual who holds that different or opposing belief. They can come to a level of understanding, but that understanding will be coloured in their minds by the process through which they came to that understanding, and it is going to begin from the point of view of their own belief. There may be no less understanding, but the context is going to be different. That difference in context is only the least of the manners in which growing up within a specific religious environment affects how someone views and relates to the world around them. There are extremes, yes, but the average is usually simple cultural or societal based influences that tend to place the predominant religion in the region as the most obvious 'Truth' for most people, and most references in that area tend to begin with that assumption.
That Spock/LDS thread is a perfect example of this phenomenon. To many, mostly the Mormon members, it was obvious and acceptable, without any stretch of the imagination, to assume that the joke in the movie meant one thing, because it was and is a given. To others, it varied between some being able to see it as possible and others being highly incredulous, because it wasn't a given and different contexts offered different possible explanations. You (katharina) even stated yourself that the individual interpretation may very well speak more about that individual than it does the actual joke. This is true in that it is a perfect example of how context for how we relate to the world around us being affected by our individual experience. Everything I have said in this thread has been pointing out that such a thing extends from how we learned to relate and place ourselves in the context of those things around us that we experience from a young age.
I did not make a judgment evaluation because two separate individuals with exactly the same learning experiences as children may still grow up to have opposing beliefs based on how they relate to the subject. There is no equation to place a moral value on such things, with the exception of how avoiding abuse or abusive behavior and treatment. The religion of the parents and the local community plays a large role during this time because a person goes from having zero relational ability to the world around them (our early "selfish" phase where we mostly only relate to our needs / wants) to being able to take part in social settings and communicate with those around us productively. Expecting all of those initial influences to not relate anything in terms of a religious belief borders on a ridiculous thing to expect, and is next to impossible. Because of this, parents, loved ones, and those who are important to the individual as a child play a large role in influencing and shaping how someone views and relates to a given religion idea or belief as an adult. This does not always mean the individual will relate in the same way or that the relation will be in the positive context. As I said before, two people with the same experience can still eventually have opposing outlooks despite the similarities of origin.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would be happy to share my own conversion story, but not in a public place. If you would like to know, I am open to an e-mail conversation. For this thread, however, I would prefer not to have it as a topic of conversation and it is DEFINITELY NOT something I am going to put under your scrutiny.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying it is wrong for parents to try and influence how their child feels about their religion?
If that is the case, I can't overstate how much I disagree. Parents have not only the right but the obligation to pass it along."
Assume for a moment that we are talking about Muslims, traditional Masai, Yanomamo, traditional Machiguenga, or any of a number of other religions, or Santeria (Voodoo). Does your statement still stand in those cases?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think any parent that does not do everything within their power to prepare their children for a happy existence in the realms that they see as relevant is falling down on at least part of the job.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
My confirmation was utterly meaningless, as well. Confirmation class was horrid, no one wanted to be there and the other kids did things like move the hands of the clock forward while the preacher had his eyes closed in prayer and throw dolls from the nursery into the (busy) street outside during the break in the middle. Going to church was a chore, and Sunday School was worse, past the age of 8 or 9, probably. I don't believe I ever asked to be able to stop going before I was confirmed, however. It was understood that this was something that was required of me. I also am sure that my parents didn't understand just how bad the classes were. There was no spiritual learning going on. For me, there was paying enough attention to be able to pass the test at the end on the first try, so I could get out of there. (The test was at the end of the two years of confirmation classes, ostensibly to show that we understood what we were confirming well enough to be confirmed. We then has to write a short speech on an assigned topic that we read in church on confirmation Sunday.)
I don't recall ever being asked if I believed in what I was supposedly confirming, except for as part of the ceremony itself. Belief never seemed to be the point. I don't believe there was anyone in my confirmation class who was there for any reason other than our parents required it. It certainly was not enjoyable in any way imaginable. If I had been asked outside of the ceremony if I was ready to be confirmed, I would have said no.
Some time after I was confirmed, I believe the autumn when I had just turned 18, I had an. . . intense discussion with my mother about if I was going to continue going to church every week my parents went or not. (Which was not every week.) I did not, although I still did a good portion of the time. I have gone back to and drifted away from the church several times since then. I would consider myself a very "weak" Christian, although I still believe more often than not. My experiences in being, let's say "expected" rather than "forced," to attend church when it was not a positive experience for me definitely color how I react to church now. I have had several positive experiences with churches, but I still have triggers from my negative ones that certain things can set off, and like any triggers that are embedded in childhood even when I can recognize them I can't always control them. And any church that sets those triggers off on a regular basis is not a church I am going to feel comfortable at.
I don't think my parents did anything wrong in how they raised me in regards to religion. I'm sure they had no idea how crappy my experience was, I was not a complainer about that sort of thing, and did not think it would do any good. However I made that same decision about some things that, in retrospect, it was pretty darn stupid to think that about, so I could have been wrong. Regardless, if the goal was for me to end up as a regular churchgoer with a strong faith, what they did was not conducive to those ends, either.
I tell this story because I think you, kat, may have had a relatively ideal experience in how you were brought up religiously, based on the way you seem to be approaching the topic. I don't think the things you listed are what people are talking about when they talk about forcing religion on a child. I don't think my experience is, either, to be clear. . . the biggest problem in my experience was the church we were at/other people my age and lack of knowledge on my parents part of what went on when they weren't around. I wasn't telling them, and due to their (much better) experiences, they felt no particular need to ask. But there are people who had some really rotten, long-term experiences with religion as children. To admit that those experiences have an affect on their adult decision making about religion is not lame.
--
I have been typing this post for a long time. I'm trying to be careful, because I want to present an honest picture of my experiences without seeming to be blaming my parents for them, I honestly don't think they are their fault. There have probably been a lot of posts since I started typing, however, so forgive me if this topic has gotten more heated again and this is out of place.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think parents have an obligation to equip their children to be able to make deep choices as adults.
Depending on what you mean by "deep choices," it's entirely possible that the vast majority of parents are themselves unequipped to make such choices, and if so it may not be reasonable to expect them to equip their children to make them.
On the other hand, I know through discussions with her that my mother has never pondered religious or philosophical questions at a level I would describe as "deep." That isn't in any way a slam; she just isn't that sort of person. (My father's death forced her to try, at least a bit, and I saw how uncomfortable it made her to even contemplate asking some questions in particular.) I don't know if my father did, because we never discussed it, but by raising me to be a voracious reader and consumer of knowledge, they certainly equipped me to study and ponder those kinds of questions myself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps "obligation" is too strong a word. I don't feel that all parents are entirely equipped to pass on their religion well either.
To the extent that parents are able, I would much prefer that they prepare their children to be able to make good choices for themselves than they indoctrinate* their children into a specific faith tradition.
*"indoctrinate" is not meant to be perjorative. "Train" perhaps?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's fair enough.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I think any parent that does not do everything within their power to prepare their children for a happy existence in the realms that they see as relevant is falling down on at least part of the job."
I am starting to get the feeling that your fanaticism is motivated by a desire for attention more than actual sincerity of belief in the LDS doctrine.
I'd love to hear some evidence to the contrary, from people besides you. This means, I won't listen if you post in disagreement, kat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, ElJay. It makes sense that others would have very different experiences. My parents were both...my family was always active, but my dad had a period of about ten years when he didn't go to church at all. He didn't go on a mission. He married my mother, who was not a member at the time. My mom joined the church as an adult, and my dad went back to church after their first baby died. They were both faithful (my mother more than my dad, but this is starting to split hairs), but they weren't horrified at opposition. I think my dad thinks that everyone will come around eventually. The general rule was you were expected and required to go to church, seminary, etc. until you were sixteen, and at that point, in my mother's words, if she hadn't "taught you what you need to know by now, then it's too late. Your decision."
quote:To the extent that parents are able, I would much prefer that they prepare their children to be able to make good choices for themselves than they indoctrinate* their children into a specific faith tradition.
kmboots, I think this is less a discussion of methods than of the specific content of the teachings itself - for parents who DO believe that only their religion has all truth and that there are temporal and eternal consequences for not following it, substituting general thinking skills for specific religious teaching instead of in addition to religious teaching would not suffice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...I would say that there is a difference between thinking that your religion is true and thinking that it it the only religion that is true. None of us has the whole truth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I am starting to get the feeling that your fanaticism is motivated by a desire for attention more than actual sincerity of belief in the LDS doctrine.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:None of us has the whole truth.
That's a specific belief - many would disagree.
I saw that, Rakeesh - I can't think of a single good thing coming out of answering, so I didn't. I'm fine if no one else does either - I feel no need to be defended on this. I'm not worried about what he says.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought you might feel that way, hence only the smilie.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:None of us has the whole truth.
That's a specific belief - many would disagree.
Perhaps they would. I think, though, that thinking that mortal, incarnate human beings could understand everything about God - the whole truth - means that God isn't as big as I believe God to be. I understand that we have different ideas about the nature of God, but is God really entirely comprehensible in the LDS tradition?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Perhaps they would. I think, though, that thinking that mortal, incarnate human beings could understand everything about God - the whole truth - means that God isn't as big as I believe God to be. I understand that we have different ideas about the nature of God, but is God really entirely comprehensible in the LDS tradition?
Just because a human being cannot understand all things about God, does not mean that a human being cannot understand some things about God. What if one of those things, in their belief system, is that God has told them that their religion is the only true one?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...I am not sure that I am ready to get into a discussion of LDS conceptions of God right now - I'd have to both think carefully about how I worded things because this is a subject on which I would hate to be misunderstood. If someone else would like to explain, that's fine with me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even if they were right (and I don't think they would be) that might contradict the first part of my statement - that other religions have truth in them, too. It doesn't contradict the part that kat quoted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd love to hear some evidence to the contrary, from people besides you. This means, I won't listen if you post in disagreement, kat.
I don't blame you. As far as I can tell, Kat hasn't examined anyone's teeth in her life.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
So in other words, I was dead right.
Wow, I have wasted a lot of hours reading and responding to kat's posts, if that's the case.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What if one of those things, in their belief system, is that God has told them that their religion is the only true one?
Is there a way of determining this other than having it inculcated into you? If so, I don't see how what boots is saying is necessarily in conflict with it.
If someone is raised to capable of making deep decisions and discerning true things from false ones, you don't need to put so much effort into making sure that they are trained into believing your "true" things.
If you have things that you feel have to be put into them and that they will not come to on their own, it seems to me like you might be doubting either their discernment, the truth that you are espousing, or god.
---
As an aside, the idea that other people were going to hell simply because they weren't Catholic, which is what I was taught in religion class at Catholic school, is one of the things that really moved me down the road of becoming an ex-Catholic.
I think teaching that or things like it are are very good way to bring your teaching into conflict with adults who are good at questioning things and determining the truth.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dag's got a point -- you're one of the last people around here who should be throwing stones about fanaticism.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
As an aside, the idea that other people were going to hell simply because they weren't Catholic, which is what I was taught in religion class at Catholic school, is one of the things that really moved me down the road of becoming an ex-Catholic.
Which was a problem for me too until I learned that it isn't true. It has officially not been doctrine since before I was born. This goes to what I was saying (in response to twinky) about some people not necessarily being qualified to pass down religion to children. It seems this is true for teachers as well as parents.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I would be happy to share my own conversion story, but not in a public place. If you would like to know, I am open to an e-mail conversation. For this thread, however, I would prefer not to have it as a topic of conversation and it is DEFINITELY NOT something I am going to put under your scrutiny.
I have no desire to scrutinize. That is, in fact, irrelevant to what I am pointing out. The example I used in my question to you had more to do with your admitted lack of understanding of a fundemental concept within a different religion. It wasn't an accusation, it was pointing out that we all learned our context from those who taught us to relate to the world beyond us and our family. I used the Spock/LDS thread as another example of that point. We do not begin as a blank slate and at some point around adulthood weigh the conditions without prior context. We learn to build on that original foundation, but it exists nonetheless. I don't see why we have to keep coming back to asking for a moral judgment on it from me, because I have none. My only judgment is that it is neither good nor evil, it is just an aspect of development. There are things that could be considered good or bad, but they do not make the process itself good or bad. There have been posts in this thread relaying experiences that have been both good and bad, but it doesn't change the reality and significance of the process and how it works. It just describes poignant moments in those individuals' processes that they feel had an impact on them, which only supports what I have been saying that it does, indeed, help to dictate the context by which we come to relate to those beliefs.
And steven: I have no idea where you are coming from with those comments, but all you seem to be doing is trying to pick a fight in a thread where it's been emphasized already that it's unhelpful.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Katharina, I am curious for clarification on your world view.
Here are two quotes from you in reference to why people act the way they do as adults over religion. This first quote of yours (for other people's reference) is talking about people who reject religion because of rebellion. I agree rebelling from parents is a poor and immature reason to reject religion.
The second quote is an example of adults who chose religion after being denied it's influence as a child.
quote: km boots, I was talking about those people, of whom I know or have known several.
quote: So have I. The most fantastic part of my mission was when I was in Ann Arbor. We were teaching mostly Asians who were there for graduate school with their families, and most of them came from an atheistic background. It was an amazing and wonderful experience teaching them the very basics - about the existence of God, how to pray, and the importance of the Savior.
What we have here is two groups of people you have referenced: 1) Those who reject religion because they are immature and rebelling against their childhood. 2) Those who accept religion as a wonderful, life affirming event after being denied it as a child.
In your world view do you leave room for people whose personal rejection of religion is for a wonderful affirmation of life? Or are they all immature or rebellious?
I ask because we are often at odds in religious discussions. It is predictable since you are a sincere believer and I have moved away from the LDS church. When I have disagreements with someone, I try to avoid it being caustic.
When I talk with latter-day saints, they often reference "sin" or "rebellion" as a reason people leave the church. I find it frustrating that people seem to not be able to accept a third possibility. I am wondering if this is a "church sentiment."
Like most people, I like to be understood. I also like to understand other people. What are your thoughts?
EDIT: I would like to add that I am surprised that this video solicited such strong discussion about religion. I see very little about God or religion in the video. The video is just a bad case of parenting.
[ April 13, 2007, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Porter, I really don't think you get it. I am done talking about Dr. Price's work here. I've explained that multiple times. I guess you'll just have to see for yourself.
It's over. Hatrackers, in a general sense, don't want to hear that fish eggs are great for you. They don't want to hear that junk food makes children's teeth crooked. They don't want to hear about Dr. Pottenger's Cats. Am I wrong about that?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Steven, what does that have to do at all with this thread? Why hijack it with a personal vendetta?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Where is Squicky to help me combat the clique?
Jutsa Notha Name, why don't you start calling yourself "Jutsa Notha Alt"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It has officially not been doctrine since before I was born.
Yeah, but it still gets me that it used to be doctrine. I very suspivious of the other things said by people with that sort of framework.
---
There's a general class of things about peopel who aren't in your religion that I think really takes people out of it.
Many religions, officially or otherwise, teach things about the characteristics of people with different faiths or atheists (or gay people). In the current world, most people are going to have plenty of opportunities to realize that these negative things aren't true, which helps call into doubt a lot of the other things that they were taught.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Steven, what does that have to do at all with this thread?
To be fair, I'm the one that brought Dr. Price up, mainly as a way 1) to demonstrate to steven that his opinion of Kat is not shared by all and, in fact, is closer to the opinion some have of him, and 2) to show Kat - although I suspect she already knew this - that steven's opinion of Kat is not shared by all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Where is Squicky to help me combat the clique?
Dude, you are way out of line with your bevahior in this thread. If I thought you were being treated unfairly, I'd take your part, but I don't.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: King of Men, whose definition of sanity are you using? The last time I checked, there was no baseline for sanity regarding whether someone holds religious beliefs or not.
Check again. I'm using the definition that includes a healthy skepticism towards claims for which no evidence is advanced, including the efficacy of snake oil, insurance, used cars, and prayer.
(Wow, this thread has moved on while I wasn't looking!)
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
King of Men: that is a subjective definition that has very little real value outside of rhetoric.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Jutsa Notha Name, why don't you start calling yourself "Jutsa Notha Alt"?
Alt for whom? You should be positive I'm not a windmill before charging. I don't know you, all I know is that you are being disruptive at someone with whom I am having a conversation.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Again, I won't discuss Dr. Price's work here, because of lack of anyone else caring. I have plenty of other BBs to discuss it on, with people who don't need 50 pages of explanation to be able to argue the issues I feel like arguing. I was never in the mood to educate an entire forum.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:It has officially not been doctrine since before I was born.
Yeah, but it still gets me that it used to be doctrine. I very suspivious of the other things said by people with that sort of framework.
I completely empathize with that. For me, there is enough that is true and worthwhile about Catholicism for me that I think it is worth "fixing" the stuff where we are wrong. And I see evidence of stuff being "fixed". Not enough and not fast enough, but still encouraging.
Totally a personal decision, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This has nothing to do with Dr. Price, steven. It has to do with you and your comments about Kat.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Honestly, I don't and didn't think anyone was taking steven seriously at all. I appreciate the thought. I'm really okay. People can discuss it if they want, but I'm not going to pursue a conversation with him.
-----
Lem: I do not believe that all rejection of religion is immature or rebellious.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I won't be drawn in to a nutritional discussion. I get my fix on that elsewhere these days.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I won't be drawn in to a nutritional discussion. I get my fix on that elsewhere these days.
Stop flattering yourself. NO ONE IS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT NUTRITION WITH YOU.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think kat is an attention junkie. Does no one else honestly feel or see similarly?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Wow, I have wasted a lot of hours reading and responding to kat's posts, if that's the case.
I agree 100%. You have. You're also wasting your time with your current line of posting.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"You're also wasting your time with your current line of posting."
Probably.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I think kat is an attention junkie. Does no one else honestly feel or see similarly?
No, I think she is sincere, kind, and sometimes makes me agitated--as does anyone who is that dead-set in their religion. But that says more about me then her.
I think you don't look at yourself, are arrogant, mean spirited in how you are attacking Kat, and are likely not to get much sympathy--especially when you characterize a need to "educate an entire forum."
At what point does it take someone to look at themselves and think, "It might be me."
btw kat, thanks for your response.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"At what point does it take someone to look at themselves and think, "It might be me.""
Nah. She's an attention junkie.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't need sympathy, BTW, lem. I can absorb more abuse than any 10 Hatrackers, and come up smiling every time. Dunno why. I've always been tougher than most.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wow, someone is jonesing for shellfish.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Wow, someone is jonesing for shellfish."
Nope. Already had my 6 oz. of raw shrimp today. Before that, I had some shad roe and whitefish roe.
See? I'm tough.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: BTW, lem. I can absorb more abuse than any 10 Hatrackers, and come up smiling every time.
It is not so much as absorbing abuse as it is deflecting input while being abusive. Any nitwit can do that; you just happen to excel at it.
*Dammit, must not feed the troll.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sorry, steven, I'm waiting for some evidence to the contrary, from people besides you.
This means, I won't listen if you post in disagreement. . . LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't see you Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am determined to not let steven derail the discussion.
lem, it is an interesting discussion about rejection of religion. I think it can be carefully-considered, adult decision, although it isn't always. I think it is usually a combination of factors.
I had a roommate in college whose dad was a sociologist of the LDS church, and he said (I know - horribly citations - take the following for what it is worth) that in a study done by the church, the number one reason people go inactive is because of a lack of a social connection. I can't remember what the other reasons were, but absence of a testimony (i.e. not believing it) was in the top ten although not the top five.
Dang it, I wish I could remember the list. Anyway, I remember being surprised when I read it because it wasn't what I expected. However, it did make me realize that there are complicated reasons for joining, staying in, and leaving the church.
For my opinion (and this is just my opinion), I think a lack of testimony comes from not feeling the Spirit. I don't know all the possible reasons for that. Sometimes we don't listen, sometimes we are trying to listen but other things get in the way, sometimes what we are praying about isn't true so the Spirit won't testify, and sometimes - and I don't know why this is - we simply aren't receiving anything.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
it takes a real attention junkie to ignore accusations of being an attention junkie.
" Any nitwit can do that; you just happen to excel at it."
Frack you.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
kat, what's a testimony in LDS? I don't believe I've ever heard of that before.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Katharina, that father of your friend in college, based on your interpretation of what was said, may have been elaborating on a very good point. The same influences I described regarding our childhood continues as adults, and naturally that would apply in our religious leanings as well. It surely has an impact on our social and political leanings, so there is no reason that it would not have an equal effect in a congregational setting for religion.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Why all the hostility, steven? Kat is no attention junkie.
I think you're just in a bad mood, and I sincerely hope your mood improves. Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Kat is no attention junkie."
My bad. She is, actually, the most humble, self-effacing person EVAH.
Absolutely.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Let's power down a little bit, folks (not all, but more than one, and that's as specific as I'd like to get). Thank you to those who are attempting to rerail the discussion, and are endeavoring to keep the discussion, loaded as it may be with disagreements, respectful.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: ... in a study done by the [LDS] church, the number one reason people go inactive is because of a lack of a social connection. I can't remember what the other reasons were, but absence of a testimony (i.e. not believing it) was in the top ten although not the top five.
Dang it, I wish I could remember the list. Anyway, I remember being surprised when I read it because it wasn't what I expected. However, it did make me realize that there are complicated reasons for joining, staying in, and leaving the church.
That finding may be specific to LDS, or not. I remember commenting to a librarian after reading Lost Boys that it was enough to make me want to convert to LDS just for the incredible social support network.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
steven, I'm not sure why you think the people who disagree with you here should have to prove a negative. You're alleging that kat is an attention junkie, but all I've seen is that she disagrees with some folks, and wants to discuss the disagreement. That's hardly unusual for a web forum.
I don't see any evidence that she has another motivation beyond that, and it seems like you're making an unfounded accusation.
Before demanding evidence to counter your claim, you should probably have some evidence to support it. Your own conclusions from attempting to read kat's mind don't count Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I submit as evidence that more threads on this side of the forum derail to becoming about Kat than any other hatracker. Granted, she is one of the oldest of the old-timers, and one of the more prolific posters, but....how many threads derail to becoming about TomD or any of the other high-post-count old-timers? Just sayin'.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
steven, you are the one making this thread about kat. So stop it.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: That finding may be specific to LDS, or not. I remember commenting to a librarian after reading Lost Boys that it was enough to make me want to convert to LDS just for the incredible social support network.
I am also impressed with the social network portrayed by the LDS community. I don't know anything about it first hand, but there seems to be a great deal of planning built in for emergency situations.
Personally, I'm disappointed in human nature to the extent that people seem much more willing to help those within their own group than the population at large. I understand it completely, but it's still a hard pill to swallow.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I keep waiting for someone to validate my point openly without insulting me or condescending to me, or scolding me. Basically, agree with me without pissing me off in the same breath. Then, and only then, might I willingly shut up about this.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What, exactly, was your point?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So if no one agrees with you, you'll never shut up about it??
That doesn't compute.
edit: 2 out 2 6:01pm posters agree! hopefully, this is my last post on this topic. Cheer up, steven!! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, if nobody agrees with you, you'll never shut up?
*waits to see*
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe kat enjoys attention.
*breathe*
Certainly not as much as you do.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Personally, I'm disappointed in human nature to the extent that people seem much more willing to help those within their own group than the population at large. I understand it completely, but it's still a hard pill to swallow.
I definitely agree that the LDS Church members could do more in their relationships with non-members.
However, is it really strange and terrible that someone would help someone in their own family, tribe, community, or whatever before they help someone outside of that group? For example, if both your son and the neighbor's son needed 1 hour of your time to help repair their cars, and you only had 1 hour to give, wouldn't you help your son?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: 2 out 2 6:01pm posters agree!
The time stamp says 3:01, silly.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I am also impressed with the social network portrayed by the LDS community. I don't know anything about it first hand, but there seems to be a great deal of planning built in for emergency situations.
Personally, I'm disappointed in human nature to the extent that people seem much more willing to help those within their own group than the population at large. I understand it completely, but it's still a hard pill to swallow.
I think the reason behind it is because it is easier to humanize someone like you because you can identify them in some manner to yourself. For example, once you know a person's name there is a certain level of intimacy reached, but when you know that person's nickname that level of intimacy is greater. Things like that draw us together into communities, and even within those communities there are smaller subdivisions. I had been taught previously that we learn to associate with the world on three levels: ourselves individually, ourselves to our 'family' or similar circle, and ourselves to our community. I tend to disagree on the semantics and break it down further into at least five levels: individually, family, extended family, community, the world and others. The closer one is to you in those levels, the more likely you are to view them charitably. It is not uncommon for militaries to encourage the extended family mentality with fellow soldiers and push the supposed enemy as far out into the "world and others" category as possible, for example. It is easier to want to destroy an enemy with whom you are not on a first-name basis.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
quote:Just because a human being cannot understand all things about God, does not mean that a human being cannot understand some things about God
That presupposes that there is a God. If there is no God, then there is nothing to understand about Him (except that He does not actually exist), and you're back to having a better chance of understanding a lot more of the alleged "truth" about the world.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Bao: I do understand the desire to help ones group, and I'm certainly compelled by it as well. To clarify, my disappointment was not directed at the LDS Church specifically.
I guess that I am intrigued by the odd restrictions we find ourselves working with. For example, if a random person on the street asked me to drive them to the store to pick up something, I wouldn't be inclined to let them get in my car. If someone I met at a friend's party asked me the same question, I'd be much more likely to agree, simply because I have a brief connection with them.
It's interesting to me, that we all make arbitrary choices about who is in our group, and who is out, and we are willing to go to much greater lengths for those inside than for strangers.
It makes prefect sense from a survival standpoint, or when there are limited resources available, but I still think most of the distinctions are rather arbitrary, and upon closer examination, we might find that they may be counter-productive in many cases.
We're fascinating creatures.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Cheer up, steven!"
*growl* I did my taxes today. Uncle Sam can....something scatological, or something.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: 2 out 2 6:01pm posters agree!
The time stamp says 3:01, silly.
Yer all wrong. It's 12:01 Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
No worries MC. I actually have a pretty thick skin about my beliefs anyway, and it was clear to me that you were musing about society as a whole rather than the LDS church specifically. Rather the LDS Church was just kind of springboard into the broader discussion.
I just wasn't sure if you were trying to pass a moral judgment on it. I'm not sure what I think about that, one way or another. I appreciated the follow up post to let me know exactly where you were coming from though.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
The study Katie cites is Stan Albrecht, et al, "Religious Leave-Taking" in David Bromley, ed, _Falling from the faith: causes and consequences of religious apostasy_, 1988.
It surveyed 1,874 disaffected and disaffiliated Mormons, offering them multiple reasons why people ceased church activity and attendance, of which they were asked to select all that applied.
54% cited "I found other interests and activities which led me to spend less and less time on church-related activities." 52% cited "I felt my lifestyle was no longer compatible with participation in the church." 40% cited "I just didn't feel like I belonged." 38% cited "When I grew up and started making my own decisions I stopped going to church." 37% cited "I moved to a different community and never got involved." 36% cited marriage to an inactive or nonmember spouse. 28% cited a work schedule. 23% cited "specific problems with the doctrines and teachings of the Church." 20% cited problems with other church members 18% cited "The church no longer helped me in finding the meaning of life."
My own opinion, given the rise of uncorrelated information about the church in the past two decades - via the Internet and elsewhere - is that the percentage citing specific doctrinal reasons would be higher today.
Albrecht, et al, broke down inactives along two axes - believer versus nonbeliever; engaged versus disengaged. The former is self-explanatory; the latter is divided among those who say the church is important to them and those who say it is not.
According to Albrecht, 55 percent of Mormons will become disengaged nonbelievers, 19 percent disengaged believers, and 4 percent engaged nonbelievers, for some period of at least a year. This means 78% of Mormons will undergo a year of inactivity in their lives. Of those 78%, however, more than half return, to total a 66% activity rate among Mormons at age 65.
All this, of course, applies to American Mormons. Outside the US, activity rates most generally fall between twenty and thirty percent.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
What does it mean to be an engaged nonbeliever? And by the way, was "No longer found Book of Mormon/Bible/God hypothesis convincing" among the options in the survey?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Let's power down a little bit, folks (not all, but more than one, and that's as specific as I'd like to get).
I am sorry steven. I pulled a personal attack on you that did not contribute to the forum or discussion, was not productive criticism or input, and was probably against the ToS.
It certainly is unfair to pass sweeping judgments because of isolated events. I am pretty sure I got one new commer to delete her first post and never return.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:What does it mean to be an engaged nonbeliever? And by the way, was "No longer found Book of Mormon/Bible/God hypothesis convincing" among the options in the survey?
I suppose that would fall under the "specific problems with doctrine..." category.
I'd be interested in how that breaks down into people switching religions vs. people simply abandoning it.
Edit - and an engaged non-believer might be someone who goes to church because he/she enjoys the community. Dawkins mentions that kind of thing in The God Delusion. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Edit - and an engaged non-believer might be someone who goes to church because he/she enjoys the community. Dawkins mentions that kind of thing in The God Delusion.
At certain times in my life I've considered joining a church, even though I didn't believe, because it's nice to be able to find a read-made community of good people. That aspect of organized religion does have its benefits.
I've always ended up joining other groups instead though. Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
KoM - the previous posters have addressed your questions, I think. Certainly issues with the Book of Mormon or God in general would fall into the 'problems with specific doctrines' category. I'd put most sticky issues in Mormon history in this category as well; thus my above hypothesis.
As to your first question, I think certainly the mentality of the nonbeliever who attends for family or social reasons fits, but this is of course a survey of non-attenders. So I'd think the category engaged nonbeliever might also be defined as that nonbeliever and nonattender who still remains interested in significant LDS events, intellectual life, community, etc. They exist. I've been one, and know many more.
Posted by mimsies (Member # 7418) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: At certain times in my life I've considered joining a church, even though I didn't believe, because it's nice to be able to find a read-made community of good people. That aspect of organized religion does have its benefits.
I've always ended up joining other groups instead though.
quote: 54% cited "I found other interests and activities which led me to spend less and less time on church-related activities." 52% cited "I felt my lifestyle was no longer compatible with participation in the church." 40% cited "I just didn't feel like I belonged." 38% cited "When I grew up and started making my own decisions I stopped going to church." 37% cited "I moved to a different community and never got involved." 36% cited marriage to an inactive or nonmember spouse. 28% cited a work schedule. 23% cited "specific problems with the doctrines and teachings of the Church." 20% cited problems with other church members 18% cited "The church no longer helped me in finding the meaning of life."
All of these bold ones applied to my situation, and even the "other church members" one if you consider John Paul 2 a "member" of the Catholic church.
I mainly couldn't justify being in an organization that claimed to have True knowledge of Truth, when so many of its past and present actions (e.g. the crusades, the Inquisition, decrying the use of condoms in Africa) were so obviously wrong. After that, I decided God probably didn't exist and became much happier and more fulfilled. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
MightyCow, I can sympathize with that.
I've sometimes been tempted to go to different churches just to see what they're like. And if I meet some cool people, that'd just be a bonus. Since I have no intention whatsoever of converting, though, I feel like it'd be operating under false pretenses to some extent. Also, it wouldn't be fun to deal with scorn if I were open about my atheism. (Not that scorn would be inevitable, but it seems a reasonable concern.)
Like you, I end up deciding that other organizations can serve my needs better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know what I miss? Singing in public. Short of going to karaoke bars, we secular folk don't have a lot of opportunities for that.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know what I miss? Singing in public. Short of going to karaoke bars, we secular folk don't have a lot of opportunities for that.
Community theatre! Someone is doing 'West Side Story' somewhere.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I hear you, Tom.
Speaking of which, I haven't even done any karaoke in a while, unless you count Singshot.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Good point. When I was in church, I used to sing, play music, and act in public on a semi-frequent basis. More difficult to do now.
I may have to find a karaoke bar in the area Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Community theatre!
Me = fattie. While there are a few roles for fat men in musicals, most of them are of the Cinderella's Father type. Once you've played Tevye and Thenardier, what's left? Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Community theatre!
Me = fattie. While there are a few roles for fat men in musicals, most of them are of the Cinderella's Father type. Once you've played Tevye and Thenardier, what's left?
Ahem. I'm also a fattie.
What's left?
Colonel Pickering, "My Fair Lady" Officer Krupke or Lieutenant Schrank, "West Side Story" Arvide Abernathy or Nicely Nicely, "Guys and Dolls" Mr. Bumble, "Oliver!" Any of the men in "Music Man" Any of the older men in "Fiddler on the Roof"
Shall I go on?
[/rant]
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I am late to this thread, but I wanted to comment on the poor kid in the video who was chewed out by his mother for not believing in god anymore.
My dad was not quite as frantic as that lady, but behaved nearly as immaturely when I told him I was atheist, and I was 30 years old and had not lived at home for 12 years. I know the news was painful for him, but he still should have handled it better. There are just some things you should not allow yourself to say no matter how hurt or angry you are.
Oh, and my brother-in-law told my wife that the light had left my eyes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know what I miss? Singing in public. Short of going to karaoke bars, we secular folk don't have a lot of opportunities for that.
Irish bars
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know what I miss? Singing in public. Short of going to karaoke bars, we secular folk don't have a lot of opportunities for that.
Irish bars
This woman speaks the truth!
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I'll put in my vote for community theatre! As I've told friends before, that's <i>my</i> church!
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
When I played Tevye, I was thin.
As long as it's a fictional character and there is no specific dialog that refers to the character's weight, there's no reason why the weight of the actor should be a factor.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I like sitting around trying to learn guitar in a park with my friend
It's doesn't exactly satisfy the same niche as church singing though. And the feeling you get from singing with hundreds of other people who know the same few dozen songs is unique. (It's not quite the same, but going to a concert by your favorite band is good too.)
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Honestly, one of the things that turned me off to church singing is that lots of the songs are really boring, and we sang so many different ones, you spent all your time reading lyrics instead of enjoying the music.
Maybe I'll just start a band, and play some of that devil music: Rock and Roll! Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thenadier's not fat. Not according to the book, anyway; I haven't seen the script for the musical...
I believe that C.S. Lewis noted that most hymns are "second rate music put to third-rate poetry." I tend to agree.
Tom, you should look into community choirs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I more often than not these days absolutely love the singing. I used to be bored. I have no idea what changed - I know fewer of the words now than I used to.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)