Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 7

 

Poll

Should people be allowed to indoctrinate their children with religion?

Yes41%41% - 31
No45%45% - 34
I'm Catholic12%12% - 9
Total: 74
2009-08-31 22:38:47
Hakei
Banned
+295|6282

LividBovine wrote:

Hakei wrote:

LividBovine wrote:


You are stating that all Religion is false.  That is your opinion and not that of many others.  I won't tell you to stop teaching your kids Atheism, and you don't tell me to stop telling my kids about God.  Got it?
I don't have children, Atheism isn't something you teach - though I'll continue to spread what 'science' (Shesh, what's that ever done for us?) tells us is true. Don't confuse an opinion with something that's unlikely or subjective - out of the hundreds of religions out there, I have not seen one that demonstrates a clear, precise proof for what it says.

You also say teach, do you really believe in religion? A god? In seriousness? What about the easter bunny? Father Christmas? Do you remember when you found out father Christmas wasn't real? I was very upset that I was lied to. What will your children think when they find out that the possibility of God isn't all that great? I think you lose some creditability after all those hours telling them how great God is.

If I had children, I'd hope they'd come to their own conclusion alone as to the nature of life, I wouldn't depend on my authoritative figure in order to scare a child into believing one thing or another. There's a lot a kid needs to learn before they can fully grasp life itself - I think it's wrong to teach a child something that's a pretty poor opinion put out a few thousand years ago to people who believed the world was flat. Each to his own, or his/hers parent's own in your case.
You miss the basis of the argument.  It is bad form to tell parents what and what not to tell their children.  Yes there are limits, but in general people should stay out of telling parents how to raise their children.
Would you not also believe it's bad form to teach a child something as important as the nature of life before the age of 10?

It's not rhetorical, I'd actually like an answer.
2009-08-31 22:44:45
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN
Define nature of life please.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-08-31 22:48:38
Hakei
Banned
+295|6282
What made us, why we are here, how we are here, how long we've been here, what life is for. Ect.

For example, teaching a child Christianity.
2009-08-31 22:53:25
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN
Why would that be a bad thing to teach before they are 10?  I think you are assuming that everybody (Christians) have the same belief as to how long we have been here. 

I believe in teaching children as much as possible, about as many subjects as possible.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-08-31 23:05:06
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6887|132 and Bush

LividBovine wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

LividBovine wrote:


Yes.  Self serving, sort of.  God serving definitely.  I get a sense of peace about me for doing his work.  Sounds weird till you experience it.
My parents and I have handed out food to the homeless in November for over twenty years at Metropolitan ministries in Tampa. It is a tradition that I wish we could afford to do more often.
I was generous with time and money a lot before I became a Christian.  It really is different now.  Not trying to knock anyone being generous, just pointing out from experience there is a difference.
Not sure exactly where you are going. It sounds like your making my point tbh.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-08-31 23:12:42
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN
Yes, but not really.   I follow because I believe, I act because I am led to, and then I feel good.  I do not act for the direct reward of inner peace.  I act out of obedience.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-08-31 23:18:03
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6887|132 and Bush

It's a little bit of both isn't it? Doesn't it make you feel good? I don't think it's necessarily one or the other.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-08-31 23:27:50
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN
Yes it does make you feel good inside.  I really do try to follow where I am led out of obedience.  The feeling good part is a side benefit.  It does affect you and how you feel about things you do, but it cannot drive the why you do them.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-09-01 00:29:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

Raimius wrote:

tell my children what I think.
Children aren't your property.
Such laws would be antithetical to the very concept of freedom.
Except as far as the CHILDREN THEMSELVES are concerned, it would give them freedom.

JohnG@lt wrote:

If you don't like being preached to by those who are religious, have the courtesy to refrain from preaching your own point of view where it's not wanted.
But children don't get that courtesy from their parents, they get preached at before they even realise they have a right to object, or that their parents could be feeding them hogwash.

Macbeth wrote:

Until the age of 18 the children are property of the parents and subject to any sort of beliefs the parents wish it inflict on them as long as it is not a danger to their health.
So, picking up an earlier point, I have the right to train my kids:
- 1+1=3 No ifs or buts, god says so
- They should speak with an Elmer Fudd accent
- Walking upright is the mark of the devil  - anyone doing so should be stoned. Moving around on all fours is the path to the light.
- Voting democrat will cause them to break out in scabies
?

If anyone did the above to their kids I reckon they'd wind up pretty screwed up adults - but none of it would be a danger to their health, should their parents have the right to inflict that on them?

Children are suggestible and manipulable, they implicity trust their parents absolutely, filling their heads with psychobabble at an early age is wrong IMO.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-01 03:01:23)

Fuck Israel
2009-09-01 00:59:30
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN
So who dictates what a child should learn?

Dilbert_X wrote:

If anyone did the above to their kids I reckon they'd wind up pretty screwed up adults - but none of it would be a danger to their health, should their parents have the right to inflict that on them?
You are right they would end up, more than likely, messed up.  We have centuries of proof that most (understatement) kids brought up in a religious home, and taught religious beliefs, turn out very normal.  Some even become somewhat productive members of society. 

Last edited by LividBovine (2009-09-01 01:21:35)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-09-01 02:17:00
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
You are right they would end up, more than likely, messed up.  We have centuries of proof that most (understatement) kids brought up in a religious home, and taught religious beliefs
But there are mainstream religious homes, and at the other end of the scale Mormons, Puritans, jihadis etc.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-01 02:19:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

God, I have no idea how I feel about this.
lowing is lost for an opinion. My mission on your feeble blu-green is complete.
It is a question of who has the greater rights ( if at at all) the parents, or the kids?
Exactly. The gold standard is you don't have the right to foist your views on someone else - but there is an exception if they are your kids.
Seems like an exception which should be removed.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-01 02:21:28)

Fuck Israel
2009-09-01 02:33:44
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN

Dilbert_X wrote:

You are right they would end up, more than likely, messed up.  We have centuries of proof that most (understatement) kids brought up in a religious home, and taught religious beliefs
But there are mainstream religious homes, and at the other end of the scale Mormons, Puritans, jihadis etc.
So, whom is to choose what is a reasonable/mainstream religious home?  Certainly we can rely on our government to make such a choice.  They are a dependable, morally strong group aren't they.  I am sure they would attempt to put any of their personal ideals into the mix.  No.  Sounds like a great plan.

In my opinion the parents rights are at the forefront here.  The kids gain more rights as they get older culminating on their 18th birthday (here anyways).  Where do you draw the line as far as parental rights goes?  There really is not other option.  Well I guess we could take them away from the parents and have the government take care of them. 

Dilbert_X wrote:

Exactly. The gold standard is you don't have the right to foist your views on someone else - unless they are your kids.
Seems like an exception which should be removed.
Do you realize what kind of kids we would have running around if we remove parents rights to control their kids and make decisions for them?  At what age are they truly free to make their own decisions?  These statements from you make it very clear you have had no real part in raising a child.  I hope you think differently if/when you have some Dilbert Spawn.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-09-01 02:43:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Where do you draw the line as far as parental rights goes?
Thats the question. Should parents be free to bring their kids up as Christian? Scientologists? KKK?
Do you realize what kind of kids we would have running around if we remove parents rights to control their kids and make decisions for them?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be brought up, just not fill their heads with psychobabble about imaginary beings and events which never happened.
Fuck Israel
2009-09-01 02:53:24
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN
Where do you draw the line?  Who gets to draw the line?  If these go unanswered then I guess that right remains with the parents.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-09-01 03:48:54
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5883|Vacationland

LividBovine wrote:

So who dictates what a child should learn?

Dilbert_X wrote:

If anyone did the above to their kids I reckon they'd wind up pretty screwed up adults - but none of it would be a danger to their health, should their parents have the right to inflict that on them?
You are right they would end up, more than likely, messed up.  We have centuries of proof that most (understatement) kids brought up in a religious home, and taught religious beliefs, turn out very normal.  Some even become somewhat productive members of society. 
Problem with your statement is that normal is different dependin on who you're talking to. You might find somethin normal but someone else could find it odd.  So to you maybe it's normal to have people who honestly believe Obama CAN'T be president, but to me that is decidedly not normal.
2009-09-01 04:00:16
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN

Narupug wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

So who dictates what a child should learn?

Dilbert_X wrote:

If anyone did the above to their kids I reckon they'd wind up pretty screwed up adults - but none of it would be a danger to their health, should their parents have the right to inflict that on them?
You are right they would end up, more than likely, messed up.  We have centuries of proof that most (understatement) kids brought up in a religious home, and taught religious beliefs, turn out very normal.  Some even become somewhat productive members of society. 
Problem with your statement is that normal is different dependin on who you're talking to. You might find somethin normal but someone else could find it odd.  So to you maybe it's normal to have people who honestly believe Obama CAN'T be president, but to me that is decidedly not normal.
Who decides what is normal then?  In the absence of a supreme judge deciding who is fit and who is not fit to be a parent or even what any parents should be teaching their children, does not the responsibility lie with the parents?  Unless you guys are suggesting the state decide what is taught to children at different stages there is no other answer.  Is the state going to dictate only that religion cannot be taught and leave all other areas alone?  Yeah, that sounds feasible.  Just admit it there is no reasonable answer.

You also have to realize, when you become a parent yourself, you will not want someone telling you what you can and cannot teach your children.

BTW I think Obama can be president, he is just a very effective one.

Last edited by LividBovine (2009-09-01 04:01:21)

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-09-01 07:42:10
Hakei
Banned
+295|6282
I believe it should be up to you to do what's best for your children LividBourne, and if you seriously believe that teaching a child religion as fact is sound I have very little faith in your ability to raise a child. The reasonable answer is you should be intelligent enough to raise a child that has seen both sides of the coin, not a bias, factually lacking life altering lifestyle and a complete rejection of anything that differs from its teachings.

If you were to remain totally unbiased and neutral throughout your life in aspect of what religion is, and you were to not tell your children if you had a religion or not, do you believe your children would grow up to be Christians?
2009-09-01 08:00:17
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
Based on the fact that 80-85% of the population is religious, I'm planning on raising them atheist because I want them to fit in.
2009-09-01 09:39:02
Lai
Member
+186|6437
Well, you can't buy alcohol if you're younger than 16, but at least here and in France, you are allowed to drink. I do think it would be wise not to have parents indoctrinate children, but it will impossible to enforce such a law. They should ban things as Islam school on saturday for children younger than 7 or so. Nothing against Islam, but to have such young children on dedicated uncontrolled religious schools (any religion for that matter) is dangerous.

AussieReaper wrote:

Dawkins' has a very similar view on this one and is very critical of Religious schools in particular.

Catholic school for example isn't exactly going to be heavy on the sciences such as evolution, I would rather have schools like these use the same curriculum as the non-religious state schools, I'm sure parents would still find a way to fill them with crap on the side though.
LMFAO, I went to Jesuit high school. The priests lived at the school, they teached religion and biology and other classes, and we had a private chapel in which we held services and were the orchestra practised. Yet my parents are atheist, I am (still) atheist and the priests at school were some of the most open minded people I know. So no, I don't think religious schools are bad by definition. We were one of the few schools in Holland that deviated from the national physics curriculum in that for us it was supplemented with a more in depth course in quantum physics, for which we also had to do a slightly different national exam. The priests tought lessons about Islam, Judaism, humanitarism etc. as well during religious classes. None of the teachers, priests or general staff ever gave us any of the creationist or "intelligent design" crap and overall I think we have recieved a much broader education than other students on this level in Holland.
2009-09-01 16:42:23
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN

Hakei wrote:

I believe it should be up to you to do what's best for your children LividBovine
Should have stopped there!

Hakei wrote:

if you seriously believe that teaching a child religion as fact is sound I have very little faith in your ability to raise a child.
Now you are judging my ability in raising a child?  How nice of you.  I truly hope you see things differently when you have some little Hakei's running around. 

Hakei wrote:

The reasonable answer is you should be intelligent enough to raise a child that has seen both sides of the coin, not a bias, factually lacking life altering lifestyle and a complete rejection of anything that differs from its teachings.
Now you are questioning my intelligence?  Why go there?  You are saying that a Believer is incapable of seeing the flip side?  We are now blind to how the world works and are unable to teach our children to be productive members of society?  That is a lot of judging based on the simple fact that I believe in God.

Hakei wrote:

If you were to remain totally unbiased and neutral throughout your life in aspect of what religion is, and you were to not tell your children if you had a religion or not, do you believe your children would grow up to be Christians?
If you teach a child to look at everything and make there own decisions, you are teaching them well.  I will also include the strong faith that I have in God.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2009-09-01 20:07:43
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7001|US

Dilbert_X wrote:

Raimius wrote:

tell my children what I think.
Children aren't your property.
Such laws would be antithetical to the very concept of freedom.
Except as far as the CHILDREN THEMSELVES are concerned, it would give them freedom.
I don't think you get it. 
"Freedom from religion" is nothing less than forcibly silencing those with religious views.  That is not freedom at all.

Forbidding people from talking about their religion, especially in the presence of their own family is what you are suggesting.  THAT is forcibly silencing those with opinions you don't hold.  It is neither tolerant nor wise.  It is also directly contrary to the notions of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

You don't have a right to stop others from speaking.
Humans have rights "to" not "from."

Edit: spelling

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-09-01 20:12:07)

2009-09-02 04:46:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Should it be allowed?
Personally I don't think so.

Smokers are not allowed to let kids smoke until they're 16, alcoholics aren't permitted to brainwash their children (OK, except Ireland) and sex maniacs aren't allowed to mess around with little girls to 'prepare' them for adult-hood, but the god-squad are allowed to cut their kids about and start filling their heads with hogwash from the age of zero.
Where's the scientific evidence to prove that it's "hogwash"?

That's what the smoking and drinking laws are based on, by and large.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If freedom to practice religion is a freedom then it should be just that.
People should be free to make an informed choice when they are old enough and educated enough to do so.
Then why do you care?

Dilbert_X wrote:

And frankly I think many problems in the world would cease to be quite so great. We'd probably have a whole new set of different problems but I think its worth a go.
It's not kids that cause the majority of the problems WRT religion.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-09-02 05:05:36
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7096|Nårvei

^^ Kids when evolved is called grownups FEOS, properly indoctrinated they then cause problems tied to religion ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2009-09-02 05:46:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Where's the scientific evidence to prove that it's "hogwash"?
You want scientific - there are umpteen religions, in the event one is right the remainder are hogwash.
Probability is they're all hogwash.
Then why do you care?
I don't like to see psychological abuse of kids.

Varegg wrote:

Kids when evolved is called grownups FEOS, properly indoctrinated they then cause problems tied to religion ...
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard