Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on October 29, 2015, 02:12:53 PM
-
deleted
-
Having had experience of this type of abuse in my childhood, and knowing it goes on today in extreme religious households, I believe children and the vulnerable need protecting from it. Telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved' is wicked. I know for a fact it can cause trauma. When our children were young they opted of their own volition to attend church and Sunday school. It was only years later that our youngest girl revealed she had been told her unbelieving parents would burn in hell. She was instructed that if she informed us the Sunday School teacher had told her that she would also burn in hell! >:( We wondered why she had so many nightmares in those days!
Mind you my husband and I were extremely remiss not to had found out exactly what our kids were being taught! We would have removed them immediately from the evil clutches of those nasty people. :o
I am on another religious forum where some of the posters claim to be in their very early teens. If that is true it is frightening the sort of extreme Christian dogma they come out with. One can only think they have been severely brain washed by their parents and churches.
I think it should be a specific offence to target kids with that sort of evil garbage, for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof to substantiate it.
So I'm told the Jesuits say, "give me a child to the age of seven etc etc", makes you wonder?
It starts like that with all religions, get em while they're young, preferably before they reach an age where they are able to reason for themselves and start to challenge, what a shabby lot.
ippy
-
Having had experience of this type of abuse in my childhood, and knowing it goes on today in extreme religious households, I believe children and the vulnerable need protecting from it. Telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved' is wicked. I know for a fact it can cause trauma. When our children were young they opted of their own volition to attend church and Sunday school. It was only years later that our youngest girl revealed she had been told her unbelieving parents would burn in hell. She was instructed that if she informed us the Sunday School teacher had told her that she would also burn in hell! >:( We wondered why she had so many nightmares in those days!
Mind you my husband and I were extremely remiss not to had found out exactly what our kids were being taught! We would have removed them immediately from the evil clutches of those nasty people. :o
I am on another religious forum where some of the posters claim to be in their very early teens. If that is true it is frightening the sort of extreme Christian dogma they come out with. One can only think they have been severely brain washed by their parents and churches.
I think it should be a specific offence to target kids with that sort of evil garbage, for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof to substantiate it.
So I'm told the Jesuits say, "give me a child to the age of seven etc etc", makes you wonder?
It starts like that with all religions, get em while they're young, preferably before they reach an age where they are able to reason for themselves and start to challenge, what a shabby lot.
ippy
Whilst I wouldn't claim to have been first in the queue when intelligence was handed out, I have always been one of the awkward squad. It is therefore not surprising that in spite of my religious upbringing I started to question my faith, and when the answers didn't make any sense I lost it.
-
Having had experience of this type of abuse in my childhood, and knowing it goes on today in extreme religious households, I believe children and the vulnerable need protecting from it. Telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved' is wicked. I know for a fact it can cause trauma. When our children were young they opted of their own volition to attend church and Sunday school. It was only years later that our youngest girl revealed she had been told her unbelieving parents would burn in hell. She was instructed that if she informed us the Sunday School teacher had told her that she would also burn in hell! >:( We wondered why she had so many nightmares in those days!
Mind you my husband and I were extremely remiss not to had found out exactly what our kids were being taught! We would have removed them immediately from the evil clutches of those nasty people. :o
I am on another religious forum where some of the posters claim to be in their very early teens. If that is true it is frightening the sort of extreme Christian dogma they come out with. One can only think they have been severely brain washed by their parents and churches.
I think it should be a specific offence to target kids with that sort of evil garbage, for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof to substantiate it.
So I'm told the Jesuits say, "give me a child to the age of seven etc etc", makes you wonder?
It starts like that with all religions, get em while they're young, preferably before they reach an age where they are able to reason for themselves and start to challenge, what a shabby lot.
ippy
Whilst I wouldn't claim to have been first in the queue when intelligence was handed out, I have always been one of the awkward squad. It is therefore not surprising that in spite of my religious upbringing I started to question my faith, and when the answers didn't make any sense I lost it.
Again so I'm told, statistically it's the youngest in most families that turn out to be the rebels, I'm the youngest in my family.
I do one or two protest marches or meetings in support of the BHA or the NSS most years.
I realised Sunday school, at about age 12, was a load of highly suspect, man made old tosh, always talked in class when there and always got chucked out, great.
I've done my best to bring up my two boys as neutrals they're both in their mid thirties now and neither are even a little bit interested in any kind of religion, thank goodness, if they are it doesn't show, neither of them speak about it.
ippy
-
I suppose the answer needs to be far wider-reaching than 'Christian' extremism, Floo. I can think of young people,bought up by fundamentalist Muslim, Hindu and atheist parents, who have exhibited far greater damage in later life than any from Christian extremist thinking that I've heard of.
In a way, I think that the appearance of this topic on the 'Christian Topic' board is misleading and should probably be on something like the Religion and Ethics board (though that could be a problem since some would then argue that it exonerates atheism). After all, Jesus' teaching - in fact,the whole of the New Testament - as well as the Bhavadgita and the Qur'an, deals with the route that people chose to take in life very differently from the extreme forms that many such extremist groups teach.
-
I realised Sunday school, at about age 12, was a load of highly suspect, man made old tosh, always talked in class when there and always got chucked out, great.
I gave up sunday school when I was 10 ;) but then returned to church when I realised secular humanism was a load of highly suspect, man made old tosh.
-
I do and don't agree with you, Hope. Any kind of extremism is damaging to a child - political, animal rights, even having the kind of parents that obsess over image and stuff. But Fooo is within her rights to ask about the damage specifically caused by the 'your loved ones will burn in Hell' extremism associated with some kinds of Christianity.
-
Having had experience of this type of abuse in my childhood, and knowing it goes on today in extreme religious households, I believe children and the vulnerable need protecting from it. Telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved' is wicked. I know for a fact it can cause trauma. When our children were young they opted of their own volition to attend church and Sunday school. It was only years later that our youngest girl revealed she had been told her unbelieving parents would burn in hell. She was instructed that if she informed us the Sunday School teacher had told her that she would also burn in hell! >:( We wondered why she had so many nightmares in those days!
Mind you my husband and I were extremely remiss not to had found out exactly what our kids were being taught! We would have removed them immediately from the evil clutches of those nasty people. :o
I am on another religious forum where some of the posters claim to be in their very early teens. If that is true it is frightening the sort of extreme Christian dogma they come out with. One can only think they have been severely brain washed by their parents and churches.
I think it should be a specific offence to target kids with that sort of evil garbage, for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof to substantiate it.
So I'm told the Jesuits say, "give me a child to the age of seven etc etc", makes you wonder?
It starts like that with all religions, get em while they're young, preferably before they reach an age where they are able to reason for themselves and start to challenge, what a shabby lot.
ippy
Whilst I wouldn't claim to have been first in the queue when intelligence was handed out, I have always been one of the awkward squad. It is therefore not surprising that in spite of my religious upbringing I started to question my faith, and when the answers didn't make any sense I lost it.
Again so I'm told, statistically it's the youngest in most families that turn out to be the rebels, I'm the youngest in my family.
I do one or two protest marches or meetings in support of the BHA or the NSS most years.
I think you've missed the bus Ippy, it's been a secular humanist society for decades.
-
I realised Sunday school, at about age 12, was a load of highly suspect, man made old tosh, always talked in class when there and always got chucked out, great.
I gave up sunday school when I was 10 ;) but then returned to church when I realised secular humanism was a load of highly suspect, man made old tosh.
But I'd been thinking of giving up Sunday school when I was 9, having allready known about Vlad getting the wrong end of the stick.
ippy
-
I do and don't agree with you, Hope. Any kind of extremism is damaging to a child - political, animal rights, even having the kind of parents that obsess over image and stuff. But Fooo is within her rights to ask about the damage specifically caused by the 'your loved ones will burn in Hell' extremism associated with some kinds of Christianity.
That's right - the issue here isn't merely about religion, let alone simply christianity. The point is that parents have an exception level of power over their children in terms of potential indoctrination, and parents need to recognise their responsibilities that go along with that power.
To my mind, as a parent, it is essential to understand that your children aren't simply 'mini-mes', impressionable minds to be shaped to think exactly as you do. No, they are people in their own right and the key responsibility as a parent is to create an environment that allows those young people to become themselves, whether or not that is similar to their parents.
At our welcoming ceremony for our own children we had a reading from Kalil Gibran, which put this point in a much more eloquent way than I could:
'Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.'
There is an equally fantastic piece on marriage which we had at our wedding.
-
Actual physical abuse can & usually WILL heal but mental abuse can be forever & is worse than any smack !!!! :o :(
Nick
-
I suppose the answer needs to be far wider-reaching than 'Christian' extremism, Floo. I can think of young people,bought up by fundamentalist Muslim, Hindu and atheist parents, who have exhibited far greater damage in later life than any from Christian extremist thinking that I've heard of.
In a way, I think that the appearance of this topic on the 'Christian Topic' board is misleading and should probably be on something like the Religion and Ethics board (though that could be a problem since some would then argue that it exonerates atheism). After all, Jesus' teaching - in fact,the whole of the New Testament - as well as the Bhavadgita and the Qur'an, deals with the route that people chose to take in life very differently from the extreme forms that many such extremist groups teach.
I realise other faiths, especially Islam, have extremists and their nastiness should be dealt with severely too. However, as my experience is of Christian extremism I felt it right to put it on this board. No doubt the MODs will move the thread if they think necessary.
-
Actual physical abuse can & usually WILL heal but mental abuse can be forever & is worse than any smack !!!! :o :(
Nick
Sadly, some groups of 'child protection' folk don't seem to recognise this!
-
At our welcoming ceremony for our own children we had a reading from Kalil Gibran, which put this point in a much more eloquent way than I could:
'Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.'
There is an equally fantastic piece on marriage which we had at our wedding.
Sounds good, PD - but then there are many different passages in the Bible that reflect the same ideas.
-
Actual physical abuse can & usually WILL heal but mental abuse can be forever & is worse than any smack !!!! :o :(
Nick
A light smack is not abusive, imo, but thrashing the living daylights out of a kid, which was acceptable when I was young, certainly is. I agree the pain of a thrashing, of which I have had very many in my youth, :o does fade, but emotional abuse can last a lifetime.
-
I suppose the answer needs to be far wider-reaching than 'Christian' extremism, Floo. I can think of young people,bought up by fundamentalist Muslim, Hindu and atheist parents, who have exhibited far greater damage in later life than any from Christian extremist thinking that I've heard of.
In a way, I think that the appearance of this topic on the 'Christian Topic' board is misleading and should probably be on something like the Religion and Ethics board (though that could be a problem since some would then argue that it exonerates atheism). After all, Jesus' teaching - in fact,the whole of the New Testament - as well as the Bhavadgita and the Qur'an, deals with the route that people chose to take in life very differently from the extreme forms that many such extremist groups teach.
A least the atheist parents in general don't tell lies about things that they nor anyone else can possibly know.
I doubt very much that religious believers point out the difference between beliefs and established facts and if they do I'll take a bet it's kept low key.
ippy
-
A least the atheist parents in general don't tell lies about things that they nor anyone else can possibly know.
None of the atheist parents I referred to ever admitted that there was any possibility of a deity, ippy. It's only enlightened atheists as we have a few of here, who will teach their children that they believe that there is no deity, but have no evidence for thier belief.
I doubt very much that religious believers point out the difference between beliefs and established facts and if they do I'll take a bet it's kept low key.
ippy
Can't say that I've met any Christian parents who keep it low key. But generally, they teach that what you refer to as 'facts' are no more than scientific beliefs since, as I've said before, science is a human construct.
-
A least the atheist parents in general don't tell lies about things that they nor anyone else can possibly know.
None of the atheist parents I referred to ever admitted that there was any possibility of a deity, ippy. It's only enlightened atheists as we have a few of here, who will teach their children that they believe that there is no deity, but have no evidence for thier belief.
I doubt very much that religious believers point out the difference between beliefs and established facts and if they do I'll take a bet it's kept low key.
ippy
Can't say that I've met any Christian parents who keep it low key. But generally, they teach that what you refer to as 'facts' are no more than scientific beliefs since, as I've said before, science is a human construct.
But science has much more going for it than religion, which is a human construct. Good grief, if we were relying on the deity to help human knowledge to progress we would still be milling around the primeval swamp! ;D
-
Really floo? You claim your pentecostal parents abused you with the, you are going to hell, thingy and you turn around and let your daughters be abused by that Pentecostalism? Something stinks with your story.
mtj, I believe that Floo's daughter is Anglican.
-
But science has much more going for it than religion, which is a human construct. Good grief, if we were relying on the deity to help human knowledge to progress we would still be milling around the primeval swamp! ;D
And in what way is science not a human construct? Everything is dependent on human theorising which is thenconfirmed by human experimentation. On the other hand, do you have any valid evidence that religion is a human construct?
By the way, who were the early educators, medics and scientists?
-
I doubt very much that religious believers point out the difference between beliefs and established facts and if they do I'll take a bet it's kept low key.
ippy
Can't say that I've met any Christian parents who keep it low key. But generally, they teach that what you refer to as 'facts' are no more than scientific beliefs since, as I've said before, science is a human construct.
As you know, playing with words again, keeping religion low key was not being inferred, I was referring to the big world outside of the now, all but defunct, mythical, magic and superstitious parts of any religious belief.
======
Quote from: ippy on October 30, 2015, 03:35:11 PM
A least the atheist parents in general don't tell lies about things that they nor anyone else can possibly know.
None of the atheist parents I referred to ever admitted that there was any possibility of a deity, ippy. It's only enlightened atheists as we have a few of here, who will teach their children that they believe that there is no deity, but have no evidence for their belief.
Atheism isn’t a belief and why would anyone not believe in something that’s not there in the first place, have to be referenced from this something, presumably inside your mind, that’s not there to be referenced from.
In short these gods of yours are not there to not be believed in. (There is no credible evidence that supports this god idea of yours).
As you know Hope, no matter how painful it might be for you, non-belief is the default position and it’s for you and your fellow travellers to prove your case, and the best of luck to you there.
ippy
-
But science has much more going for it than religion, which is a human construct. Good grief, if we were relying on the deity to help human knowledge to progress we would still be milling around the primeval swamp! ;D
And in what way is science not a human construct? Everything is dependent on human theorising which is thenconfirmed by human experimentation. On the other hand, do you have any valid evidence that religion is a human construct?
By the way, who were the early educators, medics and scientists?
The early educators medics and scientists were usually religious people, isn't it ironic, they the religious, they have spawned the very thing, science, that is now assuredly bit by bit or gap by gap if you like, burying them.
ippy
-
As you know, playing with words again, keeping religion low key was not being inferred, I was referring to the big world outside of the now, all but defunct, mythical, magic and superstitious parts of any religious belief.
What made you think I was referring to their keeping religion low-key, ippy? I simply used your own wording in my sentence, with 'it' having the same subject as in your post. I'm afraid that trying to score points by misrepresenting what I write does you no favours.
-
Having had experience of this type of abuse in my childhood, and knowing it goes on today in extreme religious households, I believe children and the vulnerable need protecting from it. Telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved' is wicked. I know for a fact it can cause trauma. When our children were young they opted of their own volition to attend church and Sunday school. It was only years later that our youngest girl revealed she had been told her unbelieving parents would burn in hell. She was instructed that if she informed us the Sunday School teacher had told her that she would also burn in hell! >:( We wondered why she had so many nightmares in those days!
I don't believe you. I really don't. It shouts you want attention. Can we have proof. I am being honest and sincere here.
Mind you my husband and I were extremely remiss not to had found out exactly what our kids were being taught! We would have removed them immediately from the evil clutches of those nasty people. :o
Give us the church name and Sunday school. I will visit and find other children now adults of your childs age and see if it really happened. We have to be honest and I don't believe you. Where is the proof?
I am on another religious forum where some of the posters claim to be in their very early teens. If that is true it is frightening the sort of extreme Christian dogma they come out with. One can only think they have been severely brain washed by their parents and churches.
Ah you can send us the name of the forum and I can check it for myself. Could be your bias is getting in the way would help establish the credence of your claim.
I think it should be a specific offence to target kids with that sort of evil garbage, for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof to substantiate it.
A bit like your claims... not the slightest shred of prood to substantiate it. Give us the proof. Show us the posts and the threads so we can see for ourselves. I just cannot believe what you say unless you do. All I want is evidence and proof. I can find that if you give me the information. What I would find suspicious was if you said the Church and Sunday school no longer existed. You can still give us the name and address and I can check through the records and contact some of the old members.
-
The early educators medics and scientists were usually religious people, isn't it ironic, they the religious, they have spawned the very thing, science, that is now assuredly bit by bit or gap by gap if you like, burying them.
ippy
Ironically, the evidence isn't that science is is burying religion, but humanism and atheism. After all, there are relatively few atheist scentists - the majority are agnostic if they aren't religious.
Doubt whether this kind of information is avaiable, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of BHA (and similar groups worldwide) membership are scientists.
-
I don't believe you. I really don't. It shouts you want attention. Can we have proof. I am being honest and sincere here.
I've known Floo, virtually, for a number of years now, Sass, and on two or three boards. Without laying all her cards on the table in one go, I have read enough examples from her history to suggest that she is telling the truth. The sad thing is that there are some 'Christian' sects who do behave in the way that she describes - though whether they can really be called 'Christian' is open to debate. One such group is Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist.
-
As you know, playing with words again, keeping religion low key was not being inferred, I was referring to the big world outside of the now, all but defunct, mythical, magic and superstitious parts of any religious belief.
What made you think I was referring to their keeping religion low-key, ippy? I simply used your own wording in my sentence, with 'it' having the same subject as in your post. I'm afraid that trying to score points by misrepresenting what I write does you no favours.
Good one Hope, a bit like being a double agent you fire away and good luck to you.
ippy
-
Good one Hope, a bit like being a double agent you fire away and good luck to you.
To be a double agent, one has to represent two positions, ippy. You would seem to be doing a perfectly good job of this without anyone helping you.
-
Good one Hope, a bit like being a double agent you fire away and good luck to you.
To be a double agent, one has to represent two positions, ippy. You would seem to be doing a perfectly good job of this without anyone helping you.
It'll be obvious where the duplicity is coming from to anyone that might be bothered to read our posts.
ippy
-
Having had experience of this type of abuse in my childhood, and knowing it goes on today in extreme religious households, I believe children and the vulnerable need protecting from it. Telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved' is wicked. I know for a fact it can cause trauma. When our children were young they opted of their own volition to attend church and Sunday school. It was only years later that our youngest girl revealed she had been told her unbelieving parents would burn in hell. She was instructed that if she informed us the Sunday School teacher had told her that she would also burn in hell! >:( We wondered why she had so many nightmares in those days!
I don't believe you. I really don't. It shouts you want attention. Can we have proof. I am being honest and sincere here.
Mind you my husband and I were extremely remiss not to had found out exactly what our kids were being taught! We would have removed them immediately from the evil clutches of those nasty people. :o
Give us the church name and Sunday school. I will visit and find other children now adults of your childs age and see if it really happened. We have to be honest and I don't believe you. Where is the proof?
I am on another religious forum where some of the posters claim to be in their very early teens. If that is true it is frightening the sort of extreme Christian dogma they come out with. One can only think they have been severely brain washed by their parents and churches.
Ah you can send us the name of the forum and I can check it for myself. Could be your bias is getting in the way would help establish the credence of your claim.
I think it should be a specific offence to target kids with that sort of evil garbage, for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof to substantiate it.
A bit like your claims... not the slightest shred of prood to substantiate it. Give us the proof. Show us the posts and the threads so we can see for ourselves. I just cannot believe what you say unless you do. All I want is evidence and proof. I can find that if you give me the information. What I would find suspicious was if you said the Church and Sunday school no longer existed. You can still give us the name and address and I can check through the records and contact some of the old members.
Sass you are something else you really are! >:( You are obviously in denial about the evil nastiness perpetrated by some extreme Christian who believe in hell and its tortures! Why would I bang on and on about the evils of extreme Christianity, as I have done for many years on forums, if I hadn't had first hand experience of it?
-
I don't believe you. I really don't. It shouts you want attention. Can we have proof. I am being honest and sincere here.
I've known Floo, virtually, for a number of years now, Sass, and on two or three boards. Without laying all her cards on the table in one go, I have read enough examples from her history to suggest that she is telling the truth. The sad thing is that there are some 'Christian' sects who do behave in the way that she describes - though whether they can really be called 'Christian' is open to debate. One such group is Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist.
Thanks Hope. :)
-
The sheer determination of the parents to pump the full contents of the various religions, they happen to believe, into their children is child abuse.
All of the religions do their upmost to promote, get em while they're young and of course they do this without prior knowledge of how vulnerable the youngsters are to any form of indoctrination before they acquire the ability to challenge, another form of child abuse.
The example of the Mongolian horseman scenario, father to son, son becomes a father, then passes horsemanship on to his son and on and on, a closed loop, the sons will continue to be stuck in a loop as horsemen.
Until the almost identical Mongolian horsemen example of the closed loop aspect of all the religions can be disrupted somehow, all of these abuses including the emotional abuse will unfortunately continue.
ippy
-
The sheer determination of the parents to pump the full contents of the various religions, they happen to believe, into their children is child abuse.
All of the religions do their upmost to promote, get em while they're young and of course they do this without prior knowledge of how vulnerable the youngsters are to any form of indoctrination before they acquire the ability to challenge, another form of child abuse.
The example of the Mongolian horseman scenario, father to son, son becomes a father, then passes horsemanship on to his son and on and on, a closed loop, the sons will continue to be stuck in a loop as horsemen.
Until the almost identical Mongolian horsemen example of the closed loop aspect of all the religions can be disrupted somehow, all of these abuses including the emotional abuse will unfortunately continue.
ippy
NO NO NO! Not ALL of the religions.
Paganism does NOT "get 'em while they're young". Most pagan parents will allow their children to join in if they express the wish so to do. If the child does not express that wish they will never be forced to take part even to sitting in the same room.
Neither of Alex and Maxine Sanders children became pagan or Wiccan.
-
Ironically, the evidence isn't that science is is burying religion, but humanism and atheism. After all, there are relatively few atheist scentists - the majority are agnostic if they aren't religious.
Actually, atheism is more prevalent amongst scientists, particularly top scientists than in the general population.
Doubt whether this kind of information is avaiable, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of BHA (and similar groups worldwide) membership are scientists.
Why would it be interesting?
-
The sheer determination of the parents to pump the full contents of the various religions, they happen to believe, into their children is child abuse.
All of the religions do their upmost to promote, get em while they're young and of course they do this without prior knowledge of how vulnerable the youngsters are to any form of indoctrination before they acquire the ability to challenge, another form of child abuse.
The example of the Mongolian horseman scenario, father to son, son becomes a father, then passes horsemanship on to his son and on and on, a closed loop, the sons will continue to be stuck in a loop as horsemen.
Until the almost identical Mongolian horsemen example of the closed loop aspect of all the religions can be disrupted somehow, all of these abuses including the emotional abuse will unfortunately continue.
ippy
NO NO NO! Not ALL of the religions.
Paganism does NOT "get 'em while they're young". Most pagan parents will allow their children to join in if they express the wish so to do. If the child does not express that wish they will never be forced to take part even to sitting in the same room.
Neither of Alex and Maxine Sanders children became pagan or Wiccan.
I knew this sounded familiar, isn't that what they all say?
ippy
-
I've got absolutely no idea if any of my kids will turn out pagan or not. So far one kind of identifies as pagan, one atheist, one X-Boxist.
-
The sheer determination of the parents to pump the full contents of the various religions, they happen to believe, into their children is child abuse.
All of the religions do their upmost to promote, get em while they're young and of course they do this without prior knowledge of how vulnerable the youngsters are to any form of indoctrination before they acquire the ability to challenge, another form of child abuse.
The example of the Mongolian horseman scenario, father to son, son becomes a father, then passes horsemanship on to his son and on and on, a closed loop, the sons will continue to be stuck in a loop as horsemen.
Until the almost identical Mongolian horsemen example of the closed loop aspect of all the religions can be disrupted somehow, all of these abuses including the emotional abuse will unfortunately continue.
ippy
NO NO NO! Not ALL of the religions.
Paganism does NOT "get 'em while they're young". Most pagan parents will allow their children to join in if they express the wish so to do. If the child does not express that wish they will never be forced to take part even to sitting in the same room.
Neither of Alex and Maxine Sanders children became pagan or Wiccan.
I knew this sounded familiar, isn't that what they all say?
ippy
Isn't what what who all say?
-
I've got absolutely no idea if any of my kids will turn out pagan or not. So far one kind of identifies as pagan, one atheist, one X-Boxist.
My youngest grandson (9) is definitely an X-Boxist! ;D
-
I've got absolutely no idea if any of my kids will turn out pagan or not. So far one kind of identifies as pagan, one atheist, one X-Boxist.
My youngest grandson (9) is definitely an X-Boxist! ;D
When my nephew was nine, I'm pretty sure he identified as a Sith lord.
-
The sheer determination of the parents to pump the full contents of the various religions, they happen to believe, into their children is child abuse.
All of the religions do their upmost to promote, get em while they're young and of course they do this without prior knowledge of how vulnerable the youngsters are to any form of indoctrination before they acquire the ability to challenge, another form of child abuse.
The example of the Mongolian horseman scenario, father to son, son becomes a father, then passes horsemanship on to his son and on and on, a closed loop, the sons will continue to be stuck in a loop as horsemen.
Until the almost identical Mongolian horsemen example of the closed loop aspect of all the religions can be disrupted somehow, all of these abuses including the emotional abuse will unfortunately continue.
ippy
NO NO NO! Not ALL of the religions.
Paganism does NOT "get 'em while they're young". Most pagan parents will allow their children to join in if they express the wish so to do. If the child does not express that wish they will never be forced to take part even to sitting in the same room.
Neither of Alex and Maxine Sanders children became pagan or Wiccan.
I knew this sounded familiar, isn't that what they all say?
ippy
Isn't what what who all say?
I don't for one minute think every religionist means, indoctrinate my children first with all about whatever religion happens to be their favorite, when they say, let the children know about it first and then they can make their minds up later on but they might just as well say lets indoctrinate them first, before they become exposed to any other ideology/religion.
I'm all for indoctrinating children to think for themselves and they can pick up any other belief ideology later, if they want to, it's easy enough by example to pass on elementary morality and ethics, religion and antiquated ideologies are not necessary to enable people to pass on the basics of these social niceties.
With these often thought of as the normal run of things, (fully described in the previous paragraphs), put to our children by their parents, is only one of the places, I'm sure there are more, where we need to protect them from abuse by breaking this circle of child abuse, indoctrination.
ippy
-
At our welcoming ceremony for our own children we had a reading from Kalil Gibran, which put this point in a much more eloquent way than I could:
'Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.'
There is an equally fantastic piece on marriage which we had at our wedding.
Sounds good, PD - but then there are many different passages in the Bible that reflect the same ideas.
Really? I've never come across them, but that's perhaps not surprising.
What is surprising however is that I've never heard any biblical passage that gives a similar "don't indoctrinate your child" view used at a baptism, which would perhaps be the place these passages would be used wouldn't you think.
So Hope, please enlighten us with the biblical passages with the same message (and hopefully the same fantastic way of putting that message across).
-
None of the atheist parents I referred to ever admitted that there was any possibility of a deity, ippy. It's only enlightened atheists as we have a few of here, who will teach their children that they believe that there is no deity, but have no evidence for thier belief.
The reality is that most atheist parents won't talk about deities (existence, non existence, possibility of existence) whatsoever, because deities aren't (for obvious reasons) part of their worldview at all. So I'd find it surprising if a conversation about the possibility of existence of gods would come up in most atheist households.
So, just to check for consistency - do you or any of your christian friends activity engage in conversation with your children about the possibility of Thor existing, or the thousands of other purported deities, or do you merely focus on the existence of the god you believe in.
And for completeness how often do you openly admit to your children that god might not exist. I've never know active christian households that have done this with their children - the existence of god is simply put across as an 'accepted fact' as it were.
-
What is surprising however is that I've never heard any biblical passage that gives a similar "don't indoctrinate your child" view used at a baptism, which would perhaps be the place these passages would be used wouldn't you think.
I was a God parent once (I was still a Christian at the time) and I had to stand up and promise that I would indoctrinate the child in question. I'm pleased to announce that I utterly failed in my God parently duty.
-
I've got absolutely no idea if any of my kids will turn out pagan or not. So far one kind of identifies as pagan, one atheist, one X-Boxist.
My youngest grandson (9) is definitely an X-Boxist! ;D
When my nephew was nine, I'm pretty sure he identified as a Sith lord.
That was when my boy was seven.
-
What is surprising however is that I've never heard any biblical passage that gives a similar "don't indoctrinate your child" view used at a baptism, which would perhaps be the place these passages would be used wouldn't you think.
I was a God parent once (I was still a Christian at the time) and I had to stand up and promise that I would indoctrinate the child in question. I'm pleased to announce that I utterly failed in my God parently duty.
That's right.
One of the other very strange things about baptisms is that the parents never actually make a direct commitment to the child, rather they make commitments to the church about how they will bring up the child. Seems rather strange to me that, surely the most important relationship, that between parent and child, is totally ignored. It would be like having a wedding where each of the partners made commitments to the church (or state) but didn't actually make any commitments to each other!!
-
What is surprising however is that I've never heard any biblical passage that gives a similar "don't indoctrinate your child" view used at a baptism, which would perhaps be the place these passages would be used wouldn't you think.
I was a God parent once (I was still a Christian at the time) and I had to stand up and promise that I would indoctrinate the child in question. I'm pleased to announce that I utterly failed in my God parently duty.
I'd just lost my faith when I was asked. I had to say no.
-
The reality is that most atheist parents won't talk about deities (existence, non existence, possibility of existence) whatsoever, because deities aren't (for obvious reasons) part of their worldview at all. So I'd find it surprising if a conversation about the possibility of existence of gods would come up in most atheist households.
That was the case in our household when our kids were growing up, and is still the case now that our grandchildren are on the scene - religion just isn't, and has never been, a part of our family dynamic.
The only time religion has ever been an actual issue was (surprise surprise) in relation their education, although less so with the grandchildren where it seems schools (or their schools at least) are now more aware that some families simply don't want their children exposed to acts of religious worship as opposed to learning about the social, historical, cultural and political effects of religions in general (which is essential).
The only issue we had was when our oldest daughter came home from primary school with a permission slip to allow attendance at a church service locally during the school day - we sent it back saying we didn't give consent, and that same day got a note back asking one of us to arrange to see the headmistress at our earliest convenience - I remember the exchange very well.
She asked 'why', and I simply replied that we didn't do religion as a family and didn't want our daughter to be exposed to acts of religious worship until she was old enough to think critically for herself about religion: at the time she was 7 years old. I remember the next bit well - her sneering reply was along the lines of did we have the same objection when our daughter was christened, and when I explained that she wasn't christened and neither was I (none of our kids/grandkids are) she looked at me as if I had just admitted to killing Bambi's mother!
I then told her that she would just need to make other arrangements on that day which she did, and it turned out that other parents had refused permission, and thereafter we had no similar problems later as our son and younger daughter went through the same primary school, and by the time they were at secondary school religious services in local churches were discretionary since they were never held during the school day.
-
Hell for children can often mean their parents staying in a relationship that is badly wrong, whether or not they are religious.
Mental cruelty also affects adults.
-
For a time in my teens one of my parents made the other take sides between them and me. That was fun.
-
I think children need to be protected from the views of anti theists too.
But I think this is largely a misinterpretation of what goes on in non religious or atheist households. I know plenty and I can't think of any where there is a kind of active promulgation of 'non religion' or even 'anti religion', in a manner that occurs in the opposite manner in many religious households, where religion (or rather one religion) is actively promoted. Religion is simply not a part of life in non religious and atheist households, and that's an end to it. So there isn't a active announcement on a Sunday morning that this Sunday (like last Sunday) we aren't going to church because were are a non religious household. Nope it simply never comes up any more than christians might 'actively' not go to a mosque on a Friday.
To do away with all forms of prejudice and indoctrination I think all you can do is ensure schools teach a wide range of things without dictating what children should believe.
All children should learn about evolution for example and different forms of creationism can be taught under religious studies where they could learn what different religions teach on it.
I'm all for visits to Churches, Mosques, Hindu temples, Synagogues I think it is both interesting and beneficial for children to have their horizons widened.
All children should have to go, regardless as to whether their parents are religious or not.
Broadly I agree - I think that learning about religion is important as a part of a balanced education. But it is no more important than many other educational activities, and given that most people in the UK aren't religious in any active sense rather less important than many other educational activities. So in an ideal world with infinite amount of time, sure this kind of active education about religion is great. But that isn't the real world where there are extreme pressures of time to deliver a broad educational curriculum and, in my view, religious education comes some way down the pecking order. What frustrates me is that broader ethics education tends to get relegated in favour of religious education in many schools, yet ethics is relevant to all, while religion is only relevant to a few.
But I might draw the line at participation in worship.
Might?!? No child should be required to, or even expected to participate in religious worship without express, opt in consent.
I'd keep anti- theists away from it though, children don't need their prejudices as well.
;)
See above - non religious people and atheists may have 'prejudices' as you describe them but they are very unlikely to be actively promulgating those prejudices onto their children. How many non religious or atheist parents do you know who send their children to special extracurricular lessons, akin to Sunday school, to teach their children to be non religious (or even anti religious). They don't.
-
I've got absolutely no idea if any of my kids will turn out pagan or not. So far one kind of identifies as pagan, one atheist, one X-Boxist.
My youngest grandson (9) is definitely an X-Boxist! ;D
When my nephew was nine, I'm pretty sure he identified as a Sith lord.
That was when my boy was seven.
LOL!
-
Athiest doesn't always = anti-theist.
But anti-theists are nearly always athiests.
I live in a non religious and mainly athiest household.
I said I thought children should be protected from anti theists not protected from all athiests
But where is your evidence that this is even an issue.
Where are all these 'anti-theist' parents somehow indoctrinating their kids in anti-theism (whatever that is). I can show you evidence as long as your arm of parents indoctrinating their children throughout their up bring to actively participate and belief in a particular religion, I can't think of a single example of households bringing up children as anti-theists.
It is a 'non-issue'.
-
As I have said before, as there is no evidence to support any religious position children should be permitted to decide for themselves about such issues, and not be influenced either way.
-
The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?
Have you considered seeking help for this condition of yours?
-
Not that that has any bearing on what I said ...
-
The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?
Shaker, this is a perfectly legit. criticism of some campaigns that we might otherwise deem acceptable. Take, for instance, the campaign to outlaw parents smacking a child that has been on-going for donkey's years. Such people are trying to remove a parent's right to discipline a child in a way they think fit. OK, I'd agree that, if that discipline tips over into abuse, those parents ought to be sanctioned in some way, but the vast majority of parents don't use abusive levels of physical punishment.
The same goes for the BHA and the NSS; they seek to stop children being educated in a way that covers all life bases, determining instead that they should only be taught within a proportion of reality.
In a previous post, 6 months (?) ago, I referred to a couple of children that my wife child-minded when our daughters were young. Neither of their parents were religious, but whereas the mother was largely agnostic, the father was hard-line atheist.
One day the mother told us that, the previous evening, he had asked their 7-year-old son what he had learnt about at school that day - as a good parent does - and had listened happily to the stuff about addition, grammar, painting, sport and the like but when the lad mentioned that his class had also done some 'religious study' (my terminology) Dad went ballistic and told him never to mention the topic again.
Understandably, the lad asked why, which sent Dad into paroxysms of fury, to the extent that he shouted at and hit the lad - all this in front of his 5 year sister. It was clear that this wasn't a joke or a tall-tale - the lad had bruises on this wrists where Dad had grabbed him very hard and both he and his sister were really shaky. Mum asked that we didn't mention the event to anyone - but the teachers noticed it during the day and within a month or so, Dad had moved out of the family home.
Unfortunately, it was in his name - no way did he trust his wife to hold joint ownership - and he moved back in about 6 months later and evicted her and the children about 6 months after that. IIRC, it took him about 12 years to agree to a divorce.
I appreciate that this is far greater than mere atheism, but I, and others I know (including his wife and some of the teachers) believe that it was his atheism that led him to such irrational behaviour.
-
The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?
Shaker, this is a perfectly legit. criticism of some campaigns that we might otherwise deem acceptable. Take, for instance, the campaign to outlaw parents smacking a child that has been on-going for donkey's years. Such people are trying to remove a parent's right to discipline a child in a way they think fit. OK, I'd agree that, if that discipline tips over into abuse, those parents ought to be sanctioned in some way, but the vast majority of parents don't use abusive levels of physical punishment.
The same goes for the BHA and the NSS; they seek to stop children being educated in a way that covers all life bases, determining instead that they should only be taught within a proportion of reality.
In a previous post, 6 months (?) ago, I referred to a couple of children that my wife child-minded when our daughters were young. Neither of their parents were religious, but whereas the mother was largely agnostic, the father was hard-line atheist.
One day the mother told us that, the previous evening, he had asked their 7-year-old son what he had learnt about at school that day - as a good parent does - and had listened happily to the stuff about addition, grammar, painting, sport and the like but when the lad mentioned that his class had also done some 'religious study' (my terminology) Dad went ballistic and told him never to mention the topic again.
Understandably, the lad asked why, which sent Dad into paroxysms of fury, to the extent that he shouted at and hit the lad - all this in front of his 5 year sister. It was clear that this wasn't a joke or a tall-tale - the lad had bruises on this wrists where Dad had grabbed him very hard and both he and his sister were really shaky. Mum asked that we didn't mention the event to anyone - but the teachers noticed it during the day and within a month or so, Dad had moved out of the family home.
Unfortunately, it was in his name - no way did he trust his wife to hold joint ownership - and he moved back in about 6 months later and evicted her and the children about 6 months after that. IIRC, it took him about 12 years to agree to a divorce.
I appreciate that this is far greater than mere atheism, but I, and others I know (including his wife and some of the teachers) believe that it was his atheism that led him to such irrational behaviour.
Of course that father behaved in a disgustingly cruel way, just like my 'born again' sadistic paternal grandmother. According to my father, uncles and aunt she beat religion into her six kids screaming Biblical verses like 'spare the rod and spoil the child. As I have said many times she gave me terrible nightmares by describing her version of the tortures of hell to me from the age of two. >:(
It isn't religion or atheism which causes a person to be bad, it is their personality, imo. Some religious people use their religion as an excuse for their nastiness like those who are bigoted towards homosexuality.
-
Don't you just love anecdotes for every occasion.
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
Quite.
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
Agreed!
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
Well, that wasn't the view of a number of professionals who dealt with him. Clearly some here don't want to admit that one's belief system - in this guy's case, fundamentalist atheism - can control one as much as Floo wants us to believe it can.
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'. Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards. As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years.
I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
Well, that wasn't the view of a number of professionals who dealt with him. Clearly some here don't want to admit that one's belief system - in this guy's case, fundamentalist atheism - can control one as much as Floo wants us to believe it can.
I doubt very much you are party to the views of any 'professionals' unless you were one of them. 'Fundamentalist' atheism served his purpose just as fundamentalist Christianity did Floo's family. It's an excuse, not a reason.
The big difference is the superstitious fear that comes with some forms of fundamentalist religion, and it is this that can turn otherwise loving families into monsters.
-
I doubt very much you are party to the views of any 'professionals' unless you were one of them. '
When are you going to realise that Hope has experience of just about everything, knows experts in just about everything and has had contact with just about every cultiure and religion in the entire world.
To put it bluntly I am amazed that he is not of first name terms with the leaders of every country and every religion and every scientific discipline in the world,
RULE #1 of Hope's rules - Hope's knowledge of absolutely anything MUST NOT be challenged!
RULE #2 of Hope's rules - Hope's authority on anything is absolute!
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'. Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards. As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years.
I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.
Where have I said that Floo's abusive upbringing was due to Christianity? Very often it is an excuse that ends up getting past down the generations. I have seen this first hand; an aunt of mine married an abusive man who then conveyed to the LDS and who used God as his excuse for violently controlling his wife and children. He was a violent control freak who would have been that way with or without religion.
But atheism does not cause people to violently 'exorcise' a 'possessed' child; nor does it cause parents to force their children through 'correction' or turf them onto the street because they are gay or trans. Ignorant superstitious fear does that, and that belongs with religion, not unbelief.
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'. Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards. As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years.
I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.
Where have I said that Floo's abusive upbringing was due to Christianity? Very often it is an excuse that ends up getting past down the generations. I have seen this first hand; an aunt of mine married an abusive man who then conveyed to the LDS and who used God as his excuse for violently controlling his wife and children. He was a violent control freak who would have been that way with or without religion.
But atheism does not cause people to violently 'exorcise' a 'possessed' child; nor does it cause parents to force their children through 'correction' or turf them onto the street because they are gay or trans. Ignorant superstitious fear does that, and that belongs with religion, not unbelief.
Well said.
-
Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards.
Can you point to these double standards - because I can see no sign of them. As far as I can see Rhi has ststed that generally control freaks will use whatever excuse they feel appropriate to control and abuse others.
As for me having double standards - I think you are letting your personal perception of me interfere with what I actually do, or do not say.
-
The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?
The same goes for the BHA and the NSS; they seek to stop children being educated in a way that covers all life bases, determining instead that they should only be taught within a proportion of reality.
Evidence, please.
-
All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.
I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'. Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards. As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years.
I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.
Hold on just one moment Hope.
It was you who very clearly attributed the father's actions in your story to him being an atheist. In what way is that different to someone else attributing actions to their being religious.
Given that violent people tend to have experienced violence when young I wonder what was in the upbringing of this person to make them both violent and also extremely anti religion. Might it perhaps be that he had suffered violence linked to an extreme religious upbringing themselves, hence an explanation for both aspects of their behaviour. Hope - do you know the details of this father's upbringing?
-
Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:
"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?
Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.
I'll leave it there, I was going to try to enlighten you and then thought, no point, it would be beyond you.
ippy
-
Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:
"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?
Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.
Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best. The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.
-
The BHA does not seek to influence what happens in the home, but only in schools.
-
The BHA does not seek to influence what happens in the home, but only in schools.
Indeed, and the NSS is, by definition about what happens within the public arena and not by private individuals acting in a private capacity.
-
Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:
"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?
Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.
Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best. The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.
Hope
Give it up!
Your blinkered bias for religion and against anything else is well documented on this forum - I can almost predict almost word for word what your response is going to be to any particular post and I am not the cleverest here, I expect there are others who can predict the typos as well.
-
Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:
"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?
Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.
Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best. The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.
Re read, no I didn't misunderstand.
I'll give it another try:
Religion is the private business of each individual and that's where it should stay, in private, in what way would that stop you practicing your belief or exposing your children to your beliefs?
Religious freedom and freedom from religion; as far as I know that's the stand of the BHA and the NSS.
Unlike in the past, at this present time I have not heard of any person or organisation that want's you or anyone else to be prevented from practicing your various religions, I don't want to stop you.
Religions including the compulsory parts of it in our schools has to go because it not only lends them undue privilege it also hands out far more more credibility than is due to any religion, it has to go, it has nothing to do with trying to shut down religions outside of our schools, or in our schools, isn't religion a significant part of history?
I know of people like yourself that seem to have this inbuilt need to grab our young children and ram your beliefs in to their heads, most, if not all of the people you classify as atheists don't want to spread atheism in the way you have this need to spread religion, because atheism, (your term), isn't a belief.
If the religious aren't trying to spread the word via our school system, why's the need for such vice like grip on this particular religious privilege.
All non-religious people want for our children is for them to be taught at school how to think for themselves, free of any kind of dogma, political, religious or any other.
I would like to protect our children from these ongoing, continual efforts to ding religion into the heads of our vulnerable youngsters and will do anything I can to prevent these privileges being able to continue any longer.
ippy
-
I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.
When is the penny going to drop, Hope, that atheism isn't a belief system: it is simply a lack of belief in gods (all of them).
That I am an atheist has no bearing at all on whether I might think it acceptable to, say, curry cats (yum yum, with some Fava beans and a nice little Chianti), trip up old ladies as they exit the local Tesco or even, and this may shock you, put knives in the fork section of the cutlery drawer.
Your continued attempts to portray atheism as a belief system just reeks of desperation.
-
A belief system usually implies that people worship some sort of god, what god do atheists worship?
-
The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
No it isn't - I don't think anyone in the NSS or BHA is suggesting that parents should be prevented from teaching their children about their beliefs or exposing them to the parent's religious practices (clearly within reason, e.g. FGM). What the NSS and BHA don't agree with is that state funded schools should also be part of that agenda. That's all - a parent is completely free to bring up their children as christians, but that should be a private activity in their own time. It should not be part of formal schooling. Many other countries, indeed ones that have a far greater level of religiosity than the UK seems to be perfectly happy with this and it is no way runs counter to basis human rights of freedom of religion. Indeed it actually enhances the right to freedom of religion, because that also includes freedom from religion and you can't have that if state schools promulgate religion.
-
Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:
"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?
Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.
Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best. The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
Which part of the BHA's aims and objectives states that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas? They have a website so I suggest that this time you bother to look at it and tell us all where it says what you claim it says.
I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.
Given your deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of a minor error in a post (#79) by BeRational on the 'Why did Christ Descend into Hades' thread (which you even attributed to bluehillside), what a monumental fucking hypocrite.
-
Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:
"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?
Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.
Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best. The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
Which part of the BHA's aims and objectives states that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas? They have a website so I suggest that this time you bother to look at it and tell us all where it says what you claim it says.
I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.
What a monumental fucking hypocrite.
Well quite.
ippy
-
C'mon Shaker - don't hold back, tell us what you really think ;)
-
. . . what a monumental fucking hypocrite.
My gods, Shaker, where do you get your amazing ability to go straight to the nub of a situation and provide such a devastatingly accurate description thereof.
-
The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
Given that you have freely admitted that you haven't actually bothered to find out what the BHA think I don't think your views on the matter have any credibility.
But others of us do know what the BHA stand for and it isn't:
'that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas' - as you claim. Indeed this is from their own web-site:
'BHA thinks that learning about other people’s beliefs (including non-religious beliefs like Humanism) is a good thing in a multi-cultural society, and that non-religious children can and should be catered for in RE'
So the BHA thinks that children most definitely should be exposed to religious ideas - they see it as a 'good thing'.
But then Hope has never bothered to allow the facts to interfere with his prejudices.
-
The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
Given that you have freely admitted that you haven't actually bothered to find out what the BHA think I don't think your views on the matter have any credibility.
But others of us do know what the BHA stand for and it isn't:
'that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas' - as you claim. Indeed this is from their own web-site:
'BHA thinks that learning about other people’s beliefs (including non-religious beliefs like Humanism) is a good thing in a multi-cultural society, and that non-religious children can and should be catered for in RE'
So the BHA thinks that children most definitely should be exposed to religious ideas - they see it as a 'good thing'.
But then Hope has never bothered to allow the facts to interfere with his prejudices.
So in view of the preceding would I be correct in saying that out of sheer ignorance Hope made an assertion which is in fact not merely untrue but the polar opposite of what is explicitly the case for all to see on the very website that Hope couldn't be bothered to look at?
-
The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.
Given that you have freely admitted that you haven't actually bothered to find out what the BHA think I don't think your views on the matter have any credibility.
But others of us do know what the BHA stand for and it isn't:
'that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas' - as you claim. Indeed this is from their own web-site:
'BHA thinks that learning about other people’s beliefs (including non-religious beliefs like Humanism) is a good thing in a multi-cultural society, and that non-religious children can and should be catered for in RE'
So the BHA thinks that children most definitely should be exposed to religious ideas - they see it as a 'good thing'.
But then Hope has never bothered to allow the facts to interfere with his prejudices.
So in view of the preceding would I be correct in saying that out of sheer ignorance Hope made an assertion which is in fact not merely untrue but the polar opposite of what is explicitly the case for all to see on the very website that Hope couldn't be bothered to look at?
Pretty much
-
. . . what a monumental fucking hypocrite.
My gods, Shaker, where do you get your amazing ability to go straight to the nub of a situation and provide such a devastatingly accurate description thereof.
Hey, it's a gift :P
-
Come on Hope where are you now?
ippy
-
Why are you all picking on Hope?
Because he's a hypocritical bastard, in a nutshell. By his own admission he couldn't be bothered to look at the BHA website but nevertheless went ahead and made a bald assertion about the BHA (in #77) which in next to no time was demonstrated (by Professor Davey in #89) to be the very opposite of the truth. He gives other people shit for allegedly not having evidence for their opinions, throws out questions but never deigns to answer any put to him and then pulls a stunt like that - and true to form disappears when he knows damned well he's going to be called on it.
As I said: a rank, festering hypocrite of the first water.
-
Why are you all picking on Hope?
Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.
I have looked at their web sites.
I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p
From the link
The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society
Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO
Now, Rose, tell us what the religious affiliation of the person that you quoted is!
-
Why are you all picking on Hope?
Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.
I have looked at their web sites.
I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p
From the link
The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society
Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO
Now, Rose, tell us what the religious affiliation of the person that you quoted is!
Scroll down to the comments section and there are plenty of people thinking the guy who wrote this article is a a bit or an over the top, ranty loon.
-
Why are you all picking on Hope?
Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.
I have looked at their web sites.
I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p
From the link
The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society
Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO
Actually the NSS don't really aim any of their activities at school children - they are more of a campaigning organisation aimed at influencing the adult public population and politicians.
On the other hand the BHA do have educational material available that schools, teachers and students may access should they wish (entirely up to them of course). These cover humanism broadly, plus other topics of ethical interest.
Here are links to a few perhaps most relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/does%20god%20exist.pdf
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/jesus.pdf
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf
Of course there is a focus on bringing across the humanist point of view (what else would you expect) but the pamphlets bend over backwards to be respectful to others with different view points. They couldn't be further from the suggestion of bigoted propaganda that Rose seems to suggest comes from the organisation.
-
Why are you all picking on Hope?
Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.
I have looked at their web sites.
I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p
From the link
The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society
Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO
Actually the NSS don't really aim any of their activities at school children - they are more of a campaigning organisation aimed at influencing the adult public population and politicians.
On the other hand the BHA do have educational material available that schools, teachers and students may access should they wish (entirely up to them of course). These cover humanism broadly, plus other topics of ethical interest.
Here are links to a few perhaps most relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/does%20god%20exist.pdf
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/jesus.pdf
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf
Of course there is a focus on bringing across the humanist point of view (what else would you expect) but the pamphlets bend over backwards to be respectful to others with different view points. They couldn't be further from the suggestion of bigoted propaganda that Rose seems to suggest comes from the organisation.
Rose's reaction to this topic is so abnormally violent for her I would appreciate it if she would post exactly and in detail why this matter gets her so riled up.
Fot instance did a humanist/secularist boil her pet cat to feed their dog or what!
-
They think one set of religious definitions/ ways of living can apply to all religions and in doing so degrades all religions.
Just as the Abrahmic religions do for those who are not religious.
You are lumping all secularists into one mould - and that is as unfair as lumping all religionists into one mould.
-
Why are you all picking on Hope?
Both the BHS and especially the NSS come across as anti religion.
I have looked at their web sites.
I might accept I was mistaken if I was the only person that thought so, but I'm not.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100004519/the-national-secular-society-arent-secular-theyre-atheist-bigots/p
From the link
The NSS website is a catalogue of anti-Christian propaganda, mixed in with tales from real theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Iran to discredit religion in general. They're free to hold those opinions, of course, but it's not secularism. I'm more of a secularist than anyone at the NSS; they should just be honest and change their name to the National Atheist Society
Children don't need to be taught their brand of bigotry either IMO
Actually the NSS don't really aim any of their activities at school children - they are more of a campaigning organisation aimed at influencing the adult public population and politicians.
On the other hand the BHA do have educational material available that schools, teachers and students may access should they wish (entirely up to them of course). These cover humanism broadly, plus other topics of ethical interest.
Here are links to a few perhaps most relevant to the current discussion:
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/does%20god%20exist.pdf
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/jesus.pdf
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf
Of course there is a focus on bringing across the humanist point of view (what else would you expect) but the pamphlets bend over backwards to be respectful to others with different view points. They couldn't be further from the suggestion of bigoted propaganda that Rose seems to suggest comes from the organisation.
Rose's reaction to this topic is so abnormally violent for her I would appreciate it if she would post exactly and in detail why this matter gets her so riled up.
Fot instance did a humanist/secularist boil her pet cat to feed their dog or what!
You are right, I detest them!
I detest them because they put everyone's religious belief and life in a box, label it, and then expect those who belong to that religion to conform to their simplistic version of said religion.
They are the opposite of what they claim to be.
It isn't that they want to get rid of the Christian or any religious input into the House of Lords but it's because they have a simplistic understanding of what religion means to many people in religions, so their ideas don't fit anyone.
For a start, they have made the mistake that the things important in Christianity matter across the board. ( emphasis on belief for example and not religious practice)
They think one set of religious definitions/ ways of living can apply to all religions and in doing so degrades all religions.
They offend because they choose what things matter in other people's religions, because they have pigeon holed them and are expecting everyone else to conform to what is only their ideas.
As far as they are concerned religion can only effect your private life in ways they have dictated....
Doing away with faith schools is one example and expecting ALL children's religious life to fit happily side by side.
It might work in Christianity, but it doesn't when you try and make other religions fit in.
I detest the NSS because their aim is to degrade and make everyone the same, which IMO is a form of oppression.
Then there is their constant whining about " thought for the day" a religious programme for religious thought.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/thought-for-the-day.html
I don't like or watch football, or reality TV but I accept others like it, IMO the NSS need to get a life and stop moaning about the BBC catering for some different marginal groups.
It's supposed to.
Songs of praise has to be one of the most boring of programmes ever, but quite a number of people watch it and enjoy it. ( I'm not one of them, but then I find eastenders boring as well)
The NSS wants to spread their inaccurate and very narrow understanding of different religions, they want to paint everyone the same, whereas we are all equally different.
We don't all fit into their little boxes.
I can see why many religious people of various sorts, see secularism as a dirty word.
It's because they don't think they fit into the NSS little boxes either.
I really don't like their wishey washy inaccurate, sanitised version of what they think having a religion means. ( for everyone, they generalise)
They are patronising, and seem to cause a storm in a teacup at the slightest excuse should anyone not conform to their ideas.
I find them obnoxious.
So just the NSS Rose. Remember my post that you were replying to was about the BHA.
Just a few posts ago you were putting the NSS and the BHA into the same pigeon-hole (hmm and now castigating the NSS for pigeon-holing - irony meter alert). Maybe having actually been given some real information about the BHA you realise you can't actually make the kind of accusations you were, so your irrational ire now seems focussed on the NSS.
Your post is so full of prejudiced, frothing nonsense it is difficult to know where to start, but perhaps with one of the most glaring inaccuracies. The NSS do not want to ban faith schools - they do not want STATE funded schools to be affiliated with a religion, which is of course obvious if you believe in a secular society. They have no issue with schools that aren't funded by the state to have a religious affiliation. There is no attack on religion, merely a focus on mixing of religion and the state. Oh and by the by, the view that there should not be state funded faith schools is popular, supported by a strong majority in the country.
As indeed I think you will find most of their views are - their desire for a more secular society chimes with most people in the UK.
Sure there are those who will jump up and down and stamp their tiny little feet in rage at the suggestion that their special privileges might be removed. By hey there have always been people like that, and guess what, they have tended to write the same kind of frothing nonsense about those campaigning for a more equal society on other grounds. Just think about the way in which campaigners for equal rights for women, or for non white people or for gay people are often treated by those (man, white people, straight people) who are in a privileged position within society, just as religions and those with a religious affiliation are in today's society.
-
The NSS are like the BNP.
What planet are you on Rose.
The BNP want to make our country less equal, to ensure that some groups in society are afforded special privilege due to certain attributes while by inference others who do not have those attributes are discriminated against. In their case that attribute is largely race, but also nationality and religion to an extent.
The NSS stand for exactly the opposite, campaigning for a society where all are treated equally in society regardless of the possession of an attribute (in this case a religious belief). The NSS is about creating a level playing field where there currently isn't one, the BNP are about making the playing field less level.
Sure some vested interest, special privilege-benefiting religions don't like it, but nor did a lot of men when groups were campaigning for equal rights for women etc.
-
The NSS are like the BNP.
In some ways - you don't appear to like them being one of them, it seems.
Both claim to know what is best for Britain, both have a grudge ......... And a dodgy agenda.
Well, both claim to think their philosophy is broadly beneficial - most people think that. As to a 'grudge' there are areas of public policy that both disagree with, again that's not unusual. The question is, do they have a case?
Both want to dictate to others how to live and how British society should be.
Actually, no, I'm not sure either do. The BNP don't want to dictate to people how they live, they just want the right to dictate to certain people where they live - if you're 'British' they're perfectly fine with you living how you want, if you're not they're perfectly fine with you living how you want, just somewhere else.
The NSS aren't interested in telling you how to live, either, they just don't want the state paying you for the privelege, especially when it disadvantages others who aren't part of your group.
Secular does not mean atheist. There are religious secularists, many of them, and from a range of religious viewpoints.
O.
-
The NSS are like the BNP.
Both claim to know what is best for Britain, both have a grudge ......... And a dodgy agenda.
Both want to dictate to others how to live and how British society should be.
And the BHA.
Remember just a few posts ago you were pigeon-holing them with the NSS (before complaining about the latter pigeon-holing ???) - have you read the material on the links I posted. What is there to complain about in that material given that earlier you were suggesting that it is important for children to learn about a range of religious and other philosophical positions. Surely there material (although focusing on humanism as you'd expect) is highly respectful of others with differing views and is largely focused on getting students to think about big issues, prompted by open ended questions that don't drive to a single agenda answer.
So for example on the 'Golden rule' the following questions for thought are suggested:
'Why do you think so many different cultures have come up with something so similar?'
'Do you think the Golden Rule is enough on its own?'
'What are rules for?'
'If you ruled the world for a day, what rule or rules would you
establish to make the world a better place?'
These aren't questions where the obvious answer is 'humanism' - not at all, people could answer these and conclude that other moral codes (e.g. those from religion) are necessary. There is no bigotry here, nor anything that could be considered propaganda - merely thoughtful information and questions to prompt further diverse thinking and discussion.
-
The NSS are like the BNP.
Both claim to know what is best for Britain, both have a grudge ......... And a dodgy agenda.
Both want to dictate to others how to live and how British society should be.
The NSS are nothing like the evil BNP! ::)
-
Secular does not mean atheist. There are religious secularists, many of them, and from a range of religious viewpoints.
O.
Indeed, and actually in a highly pluralist society where no religion dominates and non religious and religious people (to their greatest extent) are broadly equivalent in numbers the only may to create a fair society that is equal to all (and supports both freedom of religion and freedom from religion) is to make the state scrupulously neutral with regard to religion, which is of course secularism. You cannot have genuine freedom of religion if the adherents of some religions are afforded privileges that aren't extended to the adherents of another religion. And you cannot have freedom from religion is adherents of some (or even all religions) are afforded privileges that aren't extended to those in society who chose not to be religious.
-
I'm not a huge fan of either the NSS or the BHA, although both do some good stuff. But the idea that they want to dictate to anyone, let alone 'have access to other's children' or whatever it was Hope claimed, is bonkers.
-
The NSS are like the BNP.
Both claim to know what is best for Britain, both have a grudge ......... And a dodgy agenda.
Both want to dictate to others how to live and how British society should be.
The NSS are nothing like the evil BNP! ::)
It beggars belief that someone might place them in the same box. And interestingly to do so (as Rose has) demonstrates the kind of bigoted prejudice that is the underpinning of the BNP but is the diametric opposite of what the NSS stand for.
The NSS have much more in common with the US civil rights movement and campaigning groups for equality for gay people and women across the past few decades. I'm not necessarily equating the significance of lack of equality in those cases (on the basis variously of race, gender, sexuality and in the case of the NSS religion) but in every case the goal was to make a more equal and equitable society where people aren't treated less favourably on the basis of an attribute (whether race, gender, sexuality and in the case of the NSS religion).
-
Rose, the notion that parents 'own' their children is a very dangerous one. It gives parents the right to refuse any kind of education that goes against their beliefs - creationists, anti-Semites, anti-gays, racists could all then demand their children don't get educated about evolution or equality. One of my daughter's friends gets pulled from all sex ed classes because they are Catholic. How is that going to help her when she's out in the big wide world?
-
Well they are out of touch.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2015/07/why-have-i-never-taught-a-jewish-child
He really doesn't know. :o
How can religious people be treated equally and their religion understood, if he doesn't know the answer?
For crying out loud Rose - the article is about the dangers of sectarian education, with kids from different religions sent to different schools, never mixing etc. The article writer wants to have a more integrated educational system, not a less integrated one. He is worried about our current non secular educational system that prevents that and ensures that pupils and their teachers may never end up learning and working with people from different backgrounds.
He is arguing for the opposite of what you suggest.
And yes London is a big problem - I think there was data that revealed that about 1% of children in the capital's Roman Catholic schools aren't christian while the proportion in the overall population over half. That isn't good in either way.
One the points about education is to learn about other people - and by far the best way to understand a jewish perspective is if the kid next to you is jewish, rather than 'in theory' and you've never met a jewish kid because there all in a different school. And the jewish kids have never met a mulsim or an atheist because they are in different schools again.
-
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2015/07/why-have-i-never-taught-a-jewish-child
He really doesn't know. :o
He very obviously does know - because some religious people put their religious adherence over and above their broader community, because certain strands of religion are so paranoid about reality impinging on their doctrine that they are loathe to expose their children to anything that might make them think outside the tightly defined requirements they impose
They are, ultimately, weak in their faith because they see outside influences as a threat.
How can religious people be treated equally and their religion understood, if he doesn't know the answer?
Because schools are not there to indoctrinate children into a faith, they are there to teach about the world. That includes teaching about faiths, without taking a position on whether one is necessarily 'right'.
You can't solve a problem, unless you try and understand it.
The problem is segregation. How is isolating children from anything 'other' in single-religion schools combatting that?
Unless of course you tell people their religion doesn't matter or water it down until it is no longer recognisably their religion, and is just an approximation.
No, you leave religious instruction to home-life, and you make religious education a part of schooling. You teach about all religious thought in schooling, and leave young people to negotiate the influences on them to choose their own path - that's what education is, giving young people enough skills and knowledge to make their own way, not telling them the path they have to follow.
This is why many people in religions find it a threat and react accordingly towards it.
Because their interest is not their children's future but their religion's future.
Turning round and saying parents don't own their children, so some stranger can teach them different things, doesn't help.
But saying 'I'm a parent so I know better than the educational professionals' does?
The NSS is not a helpful organisation when it comes to resolving differences between people.
That depends on which people you are - if, like me, you're part of the group that worries we are state funding segregation, it's a fantastic organisation for helping.
That the NSS want to have a society where children turn out all the same, all thinking like the NSS.
No, they want a society where children choose their own path, not one where they are indoctrinated into their parents' selection.
O.
-
https://humanism.org.uk/about/our-aims/
As long as no one is excluded because they are religious.
And which part of (direct quote from their aims) that they want a:
'state guaranteeing human rights, with no privilege or discrimination on grounds of religion or belief'
Suggests that anyone is excluded. Quite the reverse. Everyone is treated fairly and equitably regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
You should actually check our what they stand for, not what you think they stand for in your rather blinked, bigoted and prejudiced mind.
-
I much prefer the NSS to the BHA. As with churches I find the BHA gives the impression it thinks it knows what is best for me and for society. The NSS just wants everyone to do their own thing on a level playing field without favour from the state.
-
I much prefer the NSS to the BHA. As with churches I find the BHA gives the impression it thinks it knows what is best for me and for society. The NSS just wants everyone to do their own thing on a level playing field without favour from the state.
To a degree that's understandable. Humanism is an 'alternative' to religion, it's a philosophical stance on a way of viewing life.
By contrast, secularism is a political position that transcends individual faith positions, and is about one way of society adapting to those multiple faith positions.
O.
-
I much prefer the NSS to the BHA. As with churches I find the BHA gives the impression it thinks it knows what is best for me and for society. The NSS just wants everyone to do their own thing on a level playing field without favour from the state.
To a degree that's understandable. Humanism is an 'alternative' to religion, it's a philosophical stance on a way of viewing life.
By contrast, secularism is a political position that transcends individual faith positions, and is about one way of society adapting to those multiple faith positions.
O.
Yeah, as soon as anyone tries to tell me how to think I get irritated beyond belief. Secularism doesnt do that.
-
I much prefer the NSS to the BHA. As with churches I find the BHA gives the impression it thinks it knows what is best for me and for society. The NSS just wants everyone to do their own thing on a level playing field without favour from the state.
To a degree that's understandable. Humanism is an 'alternative' to religion, it's a philosophical stance on a way of viewing life.
By contrast, secularism is a political position that transcends individual faith positions, and is about one way of society adapting to those multiple faith positions.
O.
I think they are campaigning in totally different ways.
You can use a political analogy.
The NSS is like a group that is campaigning for democracy as a way of choosing a government, but not for any particular flavour of government. The BHA by contrast is like a political party putting forward its brand of politics, to be compared with other brands - in this analogy case to be compared with religions.
-
I much prefer the NSS to the BHA. As with churches I find the BHA gives the impression it thinks it knows what is best for me and for society. The NSS just wants everyone to do their own thing on a level playing field without favour from the state.
To a degree that's understandable. Humanism is an 'alternative' to religion, it's a philosophical stance on a way of viewing life.
By contrast, secularism is a political position that transcends individual faith positions, and is about one way of society adapting to those multiple faith positions.
O.
Yeah, as soon as anyone tries to tell me how to think I get irritated beyond belief. Secularism doesnt do that.
I can sympathise - it doesn't strike me quite as obviously, because I tend to agree with a lot of the BHA's positions, but when I have cause to think about it I find I tend to like their message but not their delivery.
O.
-
I don't believe you. I really don't. It shouts you want attention. Can we have proof. I am being honest and sincere here.
I've known Floo, virtually, for a number of years now, Sass, and on two or three boards. Without laying all her cards on the table in one go, I have read enough examples from her history to suggest that she is telling the truth. The sad thing is that there are some 'Christian' sects who do behave in the way that she describes - though whether they can really be called 'Christian' is open to debate. One such group is Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist.
I have known Floo over 14 years and it is more or less the same thing she repeats.
No new events. Now her children are involved too. I personally, have attended Church of England and Methodist Sunday School and never exeperienced anything of the like. I note that everything she writes usually is from a point of view where she dislikes her parents etc.
Floo, appears to be set against anything or anyone religious. Including her parents. However she had a good education and her siblings do not appear to have any bad feelings toward their parents.
So, if Floo had said my siblings and I all grew up etc but she appears to be the only child in her family with such feelings toward religion and her parents. I find that strange unless she rebelled and did not not behave and so caused some of the kick back. We really do not know Hope as she did not live in England, Wales or Scotland as a child.
We have posted on other forums too. But we have never found people from where she lives complaining of such things.
The truth is some people do not see themselves their rebellion as being the real cause of problems.
Look at Saul and David. David was not doing anything wrong but Saul still found problems with him, enough to want to kill him and he did no wrong.
All I am saying is that I cannot believe but if she gives us the things asked for we can check for ourselves.
-
Having had experience of this type of abuse in my childhood, and knowing it goes on today in extreme religious households, I believe children and the vulnerable need protecting from it. Telling a child they will burn in hell if they don't get 'saved' is wicked. I know for a fact it can cause trauma. When our children were young they opted of their own volition to attend church and Sunday school. It was only years later that our youngest girl revealed she had been told her unbelieving parents would burn in hell. She was instructed that if she informed us the Sunday School teacher had told her that she would also burn in hell! >:( We wondered why she had so many nightmares in those days!
I don't believe you. I really don't. It shouts you want attention. Can we have proof. I am being honest and sincere here.
Mind you my husband and I were extremely remiss not to had found out exactly what our kids were being taught! We would have removed them immediately from the evil clutches of those nasty people. :o
Give us the church name and Sunday school. I will visit and find other children now adults of your childs age and see if it really happened. We have to be honest and I don't believe you. Where is the proof?
I am on another religious forum where some of the posters claim to be in their very early teens. If that is true it is frightening the sort of extreme Christian dogma they come out with. One can only think they have been severely brain washed by their parents and churches.
Ah you can send us the name of the forum and I can check it for myself. Could be your bias is getting in the way would help establish the credence of your claim.
I think it should be a specific offence to target kids with that sort of evil garbage, for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof to substantiate it.
A bit like your claims... not the slightest shred of prood to substantiate it. Give us the proof. Show us the posts and the threads so we can see for ourselves. I just cannot believe what you say unless you do. All I want is evidence and proof. I can find that if you give me the information. What I would find suspicious was if you said the Church and Sunday school no longer existed. You can still give us the name and address and I can check through the records and contact some of the old members.
Sass you are something else you really are! >:( You are obviously in denial about the evil nastiness perpetrated by some extreme Christian who believe in hell and its tortures! Why would I bang on and on about the evils of extreme Christianity, as I have done for many years on forums, if I hadn't had first hand experience of it?
Not in denial at all. You can make as many angry faces as you want. But there is absolutely no evidence that what you claim to have happened actually did. Have you any news reports from adults of your age claiming the same happened to them?
The fact you show the >:( shows you cannot accept even honest criticism and that you are just set against religion and Christians. You rebelling and getting told off for misbehaving is nothing to do with Christianity. How do we know that your feelings now are not the same as when younger just you rebelling and attacking because you chose not to like your parents or their faith?
I have seen nothing about the Church from where you claim to live having had this affect on any other adult or being noted for mistreating others. As for belief in Hell, had you read the bible there are NO tortures mentioned by Christ about hell. The Roman Catholic Church may have ideas about hell but nothing that was taught in the other denominations at the time you were a child. Nothing to frighten children because Children cannot go to hell. Had you paid attention at Sunday School you would know Jesus loves the little children all the children of the world. He even told us that it is faith like theirs that enables people to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If you feared hell, maybe it was because you knew you were not behaving correctly.
As Christ taught... it is only those who do not love God and others who go to hell. If as a Child you feared hell then loving God and everyone would have allayed that fear. Because you would know that if you loved your parents and others that hell was never a place to fear.
But you openly say you rebelled against the church and your parents. No child of hell would really have done that.
They would have behaved themselves and trusted and loved their parents. Hence no fear of hell at all.
It does not add up that anyone afraid of hell would behave in a manner which would get them there.
So I see only rebellion and blame because you never accepted belief in Christ or anything religious and so behaved in a way that upset your parents and your church.
Children who fear hell or any teaching of hell do not rebel against it or misbehave. You cannot have it both ways.
You obviously never believed hell or God existed, even then. You certainly could not have feared it, as you would never have had such feelings towards the church you went to or your parents.
You have told us many times you got into trouble as a child because you rebelled. But the fact is that children afraid of hell do not rebel. So you can see, I have good reason to unsure of what you are saying. As a child your behaviour would have been impeccable if scared of such teachings you claim to have been given.
I personally. know of no teaching about hell from the bible that are taught to children as being frightened. The book of Revelation was never really touched up on at the time you were a child.
So would help if you gave us the evil teachings and what was actually taught. Hell itself, from the bible isn't frightening, is it.
If you feared it, you would have never rebelled but been a good example of good behaviour toward your church and parents.
Life is not perfect and because sects appear now that does not mean they were there when you were a child.
I feel we need to know the church, the place and the belief history. I am being honest and sincere. I can only see you venting anger but no evidence because you show no knowledge of the bible itself. Had it been rammed down your throat you would know it. :(
-
The sheer determination of the parents to pump the full contents of the various religions, they happen to believe, into their children is child abuse.
Examples please:
Give Christian churches, parents names and childrens names where this is happening.
You can't because you don't personally know of any do you?
All of the religions do their upmost to promote, get em while they're young and of course they do this without prior knowledge of how vulnerable the youngsters are to any form of indoctrination before they acquire the ability to challenge, another form of child abuse.
Utter tosh when it comes to the Christian faith here in England where we live.
The Christian faith tells Children about Jesus and how he loved us and how we should love one another.
Like your atheism can teach a better example. You are here making statements you cannot sustain. Why not try joining a church and seeing what really happens then you can remove the splinter from your eye to remove the splinters of others.
The example of the Mongolian horseman scenario, father to son, son becomes a father, then passes horsemanship on to his son and on and on, a closed loop, the sons will continue to be stuck in a loop as horsemen.
What religion is that? Right , it isn't. A trade then maybe. Did you have the same job as your Father?
Choice... is something we all have. No matter how old we get.
Until the almost identical Mongolian horsemen example of the closed loop aspect of all the religions can be disrupted somehow, all of these abuses including the emotional abuse will unfortunately continue.
ippy
Do you not see your own post as being emotionally abusive toward believers?
You throw accusations out you cannot substantiate and have no evidence for. Talk about "Give a dog a bad name".
The reason so many people have wrong ideas about religion is because they are made up and are about your own beliefs and wishing to attack, rather than truth.
-
No, Rose, the NSS are the opposite. They are happy for religion to be taught in state schools, just not taught as though it is factual or favouring one over the others. It gives greater freedom to families that don't fit the 'daily act of Christian worship' mould because they aren't getting influenced by a religion that they don't adhere to. It gives greater freedom of expression, not less.
If parents are so 'sensitive' and insecure that they can't hear that they don't own their children then something is badly wrong in how they are raising their children, whether it is superstitious fear or their own prejudices. There is no reason why a child should be put through the stigma of separate sex ed classes any more than being pulled out of them altogether.
The atheist parents I know who pull their kids from religious trips do so because there is a charge for them and they do not want their money funding organised religion.
The BHA I do find far more prescriptive in the kinds of people it thinks we should be.
-
The sheer determination of the parents to pump the full contents of the various religions, they happen to believe, into their children is child abuse.
All of the religions do their upmost to promote, get em while they're young and of course they do this without prior knowledge of how vulnerable the youngsters are to any form of indoctrination before they acquire the ability to challenge, another form of child abuse.
The example of the Mongolian horseman scenario, father to son, son becomes a father, then passes horsemanship on to his son and on and on, a closed loop, the sons will continue to be stuck in a loop as horsemen.
Until the almost identical Mongolian horsemen example of the closed loop aspect of all the religions can be disrupted somehow, all of these abuses including the emotional abuse will unfortunately continue.
ippy
NO NO NO! Not ALL of the religions.
Paganism does NOT "get 'em while they're young". Most pagan parents will allow their children to join in if they express the wish so to do. If the child does not express that wish they will never be forced to take part even to sitting in the same room.
Neither of Alex and Maxine Sanders children became pagan or Wiccan.
Alex and Maxine Sanders were white witches. I knew one of his siblings I also remember them being on tv in the 70's.
One example where you believe it applies to all pagans children. But the truth is that like ippys accusation. One is not true for all. Selective reasoning is not acceptable when applying one example of anything to the whole amount of believers be it Christianity or Paganism.
-
It isn't because I think parents do own children, but because it's usually said by someone else ( a relative stranger) who wants to influence the way a child looks at the world.
And so do her parents, and chances are they're all doing it with the very best of intentions. We have checks and balances to try to ensure that educational establishments are working in the best interests of the children when they do what they do, we don't have that in place for parents.
It's a very threatening thing to say to a parent who may be already be sensitive to what their children are taught.
But their sensitivity doesn't over-ride the right of the child to a rounded, balanced, fair education and a proper introduction into the society that they are part of.
I've never heard of any child being pulled out of a science class, but I don't remember being taught about evolution particularly either.
There is no right to pull children out of a science class, so far as I know, so instead we have faith schools where some of the science is pulled out of the science class instead. Or where 'anti-science' is pumped into the all-encompassing 'religious instruction' element, and the science is deliberately undermined within the science lessons.
That's the threat - not broadly realised, so far as the evidence available shows, but it has happened.
The classes children got pulled from was loosely labelled RE which also covered things like sex ed, drugs, politics, and other various things. RE was basically a dumping ground for misc subjects.
And these days those are part of the PSHE curriculum - personally I think religious education should be a part of that as well.
I don't agree with pulling children out of sex ed classes but wonder if a different approach needs to be taken with some children who's parents object.
Why? Why does a parents' recidivism mean that a child has to go without a part of their education?
I think first we need to establish what the objection is.
Does it matter? What objection is going to be valid?
The objections I have come across have been along the lines that it might teach the children to experiment or that it might teach them things that are contrary to the values held by religion of one sort or another.
Children will or won't experiment - if they already know what's involved and what the implications are, the data shows, they'll be less likely to experiment and less likely when they do experiment to fall foul of the worst of the negative consequences.
When reality does conflict with their parents' religion, a) it's reality, deal with it and b) that child shouldn't be limited by the religion of their parents.
Perhaps some sort of private lesson which teaches the child about it in such a way that satisfies the parent and the school.
The various major religious groups already have plenty of opportunity to feed into the national curriculum.
Parents and teachers need to be talking to each other IMO.
Is there any evidence they don't? This problem isn't that parents and teachers aren't talking, but rather those instances when their conversation is dominated by their religious outlook to the detriment of their child and the broader community cohesion.
I have come across Athiest parents who opted their children out of visiting a mosque ( I didn't agree with them either, it seemed to be based on prejudice)
And neither would I agree, so long as the visit was to see a mosque and not to partake in the activities in a mosque - it's education about Islam, not 'education' in Islam.
I could see a few Muslim parents wanting to exclude their children from music classes as a small minority only believe music should be listened to in a religious setting.
And if and when their child is old enough to choose whether they want to be both a Muslim and, specifically, an adherent of that form of Islam then they can forgo music if they wish, but if they choose not to why should they have no idea of music at that point in their life?
That's the thing about religion though, it doesn't always sit easily within our own values.
That's fine, people are entitled to their own choices when it comes to religion: children, in that sense, are also people, and are entitled to their own choices. That means being informed of all the implications of those choices, informed of what their other options are, and not having their understanding and options limited by choices made by other people, including their parents.
One way forward is to wrest away the children from parental influence by passing laws to prevent this aspect of religion and the option of opting out within schools. ( children are in school as much as they are at home). Make education standard across all schools in the UK and to exclude religion ( terrible idea IMO)
Why is that a terrible idea? Why is it wrong for children to know that Jews believe one thing, Christians another, Muslims another, Buddhists another, some people don't believe any of it? Why is that wrong? It's a fact, should we shy away from inconvenient facts?
The NSS annoys me because its policies ( either unknowingly or knowingly) seek to do this, without acknowledging it.
On the contrary, I think in that sense they're fairly explicit about saying that's what they want.
See, it doesn't matter how hard I try, I see it as a form of social engineering.
And restricting 'Muslim' children's exposure to other ideas to maintain their faith in Islam isn't? Segregating Jewish children so that Hassidics can maintain their ideas of gender differentiation in spite of the evidence isn't social engineering? Any choice on how we educate is going to be open to the accusation of social engineering - what method is less intrusive than giving all the information possible to people and letting them choose their own path?
Part of me wants children to have a wide education but I am also very aware that it can be seen as a form of social engineering and if you are not careful you loose those children's sense of individuality.
Whereas segregating all the Muslims into Muslim schools and teaching them Muslim lessons delivered by Muslims doesn't supress individuality at all?
To me the NSS seem to want to churn out lots of little Athiest sausages, who only go home to their religions and customs.
Right. And when they are adults, in the main, though their home-bound religion will inform their choices, reality means that their religion doesn't over-ride the rules of the land at work, or in public. They can't protest the presence of 'infidels' or 'heathen' in their place of work, they can't expect to attend public places and not have one gender there in most instances. This is the reality of the society in which they live, it's multi-cultural, and they'll only appreciate that if their education is multi-cultural as well.
The thing is too, I value diversity. The NSS don't, they are too busy trying to make people think alike.
No, they aren't. The only way to guarantee diversity is to allow everyone to choose their own path. How can a child appreciate diversity if they never see it? If everything they know is 'The Jewish Way' according to a given sub-school's interpretation of what that is, what opportunity do they have to know what diversity is?
Diversity doesn't mean having the requisite number of each given demographic, it means people are free to join whichever demographic they want.
O.
See they are sort of furtively practicing or encouraging the practice of social engineering.
[/quote]
-
The point is though, orthodox Jewish children don't tend to go to schools other than Jewish ones because other schools don't know enough about Orthodox Judaism to cope with it, or make the steps necessary to make those children feel welcome.
How do you get an Orthodox Jewish child? They aren't old enough to know what that means - you mean the child of Orthodox Jewish parents, and you're presuming those parents have a right to determine the religion of their child.
School kitchens don't keep kosher for a start.
I'm pretty sure they do. And Halal.
Some homes have two sets of everything, so your meat never goes in a bowl that has contained dairy products.
And? Homes can do that if they want.
Because your average state school can't cope, that teacher has not taught a Jewish child.......
No, the school can cope. The parents can't cope with the idea that their child might actually learn something outside of the tightly controlled story they deliver to limit that child's future.
To bring an Orthodox Jewish child into a state school you are either going to have to invest time and money making the sort of place that can accommodate the way he/she is, or you can devalue and water down their religion until it means what you want it to mean ( as opposed to what they think it means) and weaken their religion to the point it just conforms to society.
You're talking about creating an environment that accomodates the way the parents want that child to be, that's not the point. The point isn't to control the child's horizons but to expand them - if they choose Jewish Orthodoxy after that, fine, that's their choice, but the point is that it's their choice and not the choice of their parents.
Can you not see this? It's social engineering, to make people conform to one type.
And to limit the choices of the children of Orthodox Jews to maintain Orthodox Judaism isn't social engineering?
It's devaluing all they believe in, to make them conform to what the rest of society wants them and thinks they ought to be.
And holding them to their parents religious outlook is devaluing everyone else's beliefs and outlook - that's the nature of making choices.
The NSS is at the forefront of this.
Someone needs to be.
O.
-
School kitchens do not keep kosher, having worked in a number over the years.
Not for an Orthodox Jewish child.
How do you get an orthodox Jewish child? You mean the child of Orthodox Jewish parents. Why should that child's diet be restricted by the choices of their parents?
As it is, several schools were in the news earlier this year for dropping pork from their menus to accomodate religious sentiment that required not just individual meals be pork free but the kitchen to be pork free.
Ultimately, this is a clash of rights, which is always difficult to adjudicate. Do you believe the child's right to a broad education is trumped by the parents' right to promulgate their religion, or do you believe that the parents right to a religion is trumped by the child's right to their own choices?
The NSS, like me, believes the latter. You, apparently, think that the parents rights trump those of the child, I don't see that the parents rights extend to determining the childs' future.
O.
-
No, Rose, the NSS are the opposite. They are happy for religion to be taught in state schools, just not taught as though it is factual or favouring one over the others. It gives greater freedom to families that don't fit the 'daily act of Christian worship' mould because they aren't getting influenced by a religion that they don't adhere to. It gives greater freedom of expression, not less.
If parents are so 'sensitive' and insecure that they can't hear that they don't own their children then something is badly wrong in how they are raising their children, whether it is superstitious fear or their own prejudices. There is no reason why a child should be put through the stigma of separate sex ed classes any more than being pulled out of them altogether.
The atheist parents I know who pull their kids from religious trips do so because there is a charge for them and they do not want their money funding organised religion.
The BHA I do find far more prescriptive in the kinds of people it thinks we should be.
they are happy for it to be taught, ( as in someone else's belief that conforms to their definition of it).
However their only answer to real diversity seems to be a form of social engineering that goes against the idea of respecting the diversity of others.
Put an orthodox Jewish child in front of them and they will expect him to dilute his religion to suit themselves.
They would happily pop him in a state school and not even acknowledge the issue.
Social engineering.
That's what it is.
Social engineering is where you create a system that results in different groups ending up taught in different little boxes never meeting, because you have to have a school for this group, another for that group and so on.
It is non-sense - all state schools should be suitable for kids from all religious or non religious backgrounds. And remember part of the point of education is to prepare children for the wider world. If the wider world involve people from all kinds of backgrounds schools should reflect this (as far as is practicable) in practice not just in theory. To do otherwise cements ghettoisation and ultimately does the children of orthodox jewish parents no favours at all, as it limits choice and basic human rights and freedoms. Namely for those children to chose either to remain orthodox jewish as adults or to decide a different path.
And don't forget that kids spend just 1300 hours a year at school (out of 8700!!) - there is plenty of time outside of school for parents to promulgate their faith and to instruct their children in that faith if they chose. They should not expect the state to do it for them, and the state should not do this, it isn't the role of the state to bring up children in any faith.
The reality, of course, isn't that these children cannot be accommodated perfectly within a normal state school environment, no the reality is that the parents are scared of allowing their children to mix with kids of other faiths (and whisper it quietly of no faith at all) and that their kids just might prefer a different religion as adults or no religion at all once they see this is possible and 'normal'. But it is a basic human right for a person to be allowed to change their religion.
-
School kitchens do not keep kosher, having worked in a number over the years.
Not for an Orthodox Jewish child.
All the cutlery and bowls are washed together and there are no special ones for dairy and meat.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kosherkitchen.html
State schools should (and do) make reasonable accommodation for children with different cultural (including religious needs). And that's as it should be, and there need to be an emphasis on reasonable. The state has to provide a suitable education for all children, it does not have to unreasonable cater for every foible and whim of sensitive parents (whether that be based on religion or any other grounds).
The need to ensure that children receive a broad and balanced education and are prepared for the world outside, plus are supported in developing their basic human right of religious freedom (the freedom of the child to chose their religion, note, not the right of a parent to impose a religion that is really difficult to change due to socially engineering their cultural environment) is paramount. And frankly more important as a role for the state that pandering to religious foibles.
If parents cannot accept a broad and balanced education in the state then they have the right not to send their children to state schools. What the state should never do is pander to the siren call of the religious extremes for state funded schools that are narrow and restrictive and engender ghettoisation. We are seeing the problems within this already.
-
Its an insidious obnoxious form of social engineering.
You keep saying that, I've conceded that any educational system will be open to that accusation. Do you not see that segregated schooling is also a form of social engineering?
It devalues people's individuality, while claiming to increase it.
No, it values people's individuality by giving them options rather than restricting them to their parents' outlook.
It devalues the opinion of someone, because they are religious, and is prejudiced while claiming to stand against it.
No, it doesn't give someone the right to limit their child, religious or otherwise. Would you accept 'communist schools'? Nazi schools?
The NSS and their social engineering I find contemptable.
That's clear, you haven't explained though why a parent's religion trumps their child's right to their own choices.
The aims might sound all good, but it isn't.
Well at least you acknowledge that much.
At the end of the day it stops free thought, as much if not more, than the worst aspects of religion.
How does teaching someone about all religions rather than just one, exposing them to various faith positions rather than limiting their exposure to just one constitute stopping free thought?
You seem to be fixated on the parents as though the children didn't have any rights of their own - the parents are free to believe what they will, where their children go to school won't change their parents beliefs, but it will allow the children a better opportunity to choose their own.
O.
-
Its an insidious obnoxious form of social engineering.
It devalues people's individuality, while claiming to increase it.
The most invidious form of social engineering is one that assumes that a new born child must develop the same religion as its parents, and creates a complex socially engineered culture around that child to ensure that they both unthinkingly accept that religion, and secondly that they are prevented from meaningful contact with people who may have other religious view (or not religion) for fear that their 'faith' might be shaken.
Now that's social engineering. Providing a child with a broad education where the learn about all sorts of cultures and religions, and most importantly learn with and develop friendships with kids from all sorts of backgrounds is the very opposite of social engineering. It provides choice and freedom for the individual and also engenders respect. The very best way to ensure that one group of people hate another is to use social engineering so they don't ever interact. Once you learn and play together you see beyond the headscarf or the kippah and see the actual person. Prevent proper interaction and you see only the headscarf or the kippah.
-
I don't believe you. I really don't. It shouts you want attention. Can we have proof. I am being honest and sincere here.
I've known Floo, virtually, for a number of years now, Sass, and on two or three boards. Without laying all her cards on the table in one go, I have read enough examples from her history to suggest that she is telling the truth. The sad thing is that there are some 'Christian' sects who do behave in the way that she describes - though whether they can really be called 'Christian' is open to debate. One such group is Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist.
I have known Floo over 14 years and it is more or less the same thing she repeats.
No new events. Now her children are involved too. I personally, have attended Church of England and Methodist Sunday School and never exeperienced anything of the like. I note that everything she writes usually is from a point of view where she dislikes her parents etc.
Floo, appears to be set against anything or anyone religious. Including her parents. However she had a good education and her siblings do not appear to have any bad feelings toward their parents.
So, if Floo had said my siblings and I all grew up etc but she appears to be the only child in her family with such feelings toward religion and her parents. I find that strange unless she rebelled and did not not behave and so caused some of the kick back. We really do not know Hope as she did not live in England, Wales or Scotland as a child.
We have posted on other forums too. But we have never found people from where she lives complaining of such things.
The truth is some people do not see themselves their rebellion as being the real cause of problems.
Look at Saul and David. David was not doing anything wrong but Saul still found problems with him, enough to want to kill him and he did no wrong.
All I am saying is that I cannot believe but if she gives us the things asked for we can check for ourselves.
As usual you spout garbage Sass! >:( I am NOT against ALL religious people at all, just extremists like those who spout the very nasty 'you must be 'saved' or else' dogma. I am very proud of my children as their deeds prove them to be good people! You know NOTHING about my siblings and their feelings so don't pretend you do.
You really do make things up as you go along! I lived in different parts of England from the age of 19 in 1969, until we moved to Wales in 1990, living in several different places there too! I have spent over twice as long in the UK as I spent in my home island!
BTW ALL the pastors who belonged to the three Elim Pentecostal churches in my home island were from the UK, one from Wales, others from all over England and two from Northern Ireland! None were home grown!
Rebellion against evil nastiness like that terrible dogma is right and proper, imo!
-
My son only likes sausages and ham. I'd be seriously pissed off if his school banned them.
-
There is nothing wrong in teaching children about other religions, provided you do so, not some watered down version that is untrue.
In principle that's fine - there's an area of discussion to be had about what's 'true' for any given faith, but as I understand it the various religious affiliations are invited to give their input into what the national curriculum teaches about each faith.
For example, a friend's daughter was given an essay to write on Orthodox Judaism and what steps they would take if an orthodox Jewish child was coming to tea and for a sleep over at their house. ( my friend isn't Jewish)
It was worded as if this was something quite reasonable to expect a non Jewish household to come across.
If it had been a reformed Jewish friend was coming over to stay, it wouldn't have been so bad.
Whatever the school was teaching the children, it wasn't really about Orthodox Judaism otherwise they would not have framed the question in the way they did.
I asked some Orthodox Jews I knew at the time, and basically it wouldn't happen.
So they created a situation to try to get children to see things from a given faith position, and your objection is that it didn't take into account the fact that this particular faith position is tribal and insular and wouldn't actually be sociable enough to go visit someone?
Do you actually think that's supporting your point or mine?
That still doesn't address the underlying point of the discussion - do you think a parents' religious viewpoint trumps their child's right to free, informed choice?
It's a tough call, and I'm not going to pretend that my lack of any noticable faith position probably informs my take on it - or, perhaps, my underlying nature informs my take on it and my atheism - but that doesn't invalidate the question or my position.
O.
-
For example, a friend's daughter was given an essay to write on Orthodox Judaism and what steps they would take if an orthodox Jewish child was coming to tea and for a sleep over at their house. ( my friend isn't Jewish)
It was worded as if this was something quite reasonable to expect a non Jewish household to come across.
Guess what if we had more integrated education rather than doing this as a theoretical exercise, she and her parents might actually be doing this for real. And how much better that would be in terms of learning about different cultures. And of course it cuts both ways as the orthodox jewish kid would learn about other cultures too.
And how appalling to bring this across as something 'reasonable' - so important for us to make it absolutely clear that never, ever, ever should an orthodox jewish child play and interact with a non orthodox jewish child.
Hmm there is a history of that kind of ghettoisation, and we know where that lead don't we.
-
No, my objection is they didn't do their research properly before setting a question, and that people such as yourself use terms like " tribal" "insular" and " unsocial" to judge someone else's religion because you can't be bothered to see a different POV or even explore why it wouldn't happen.
It's insular - why it's insular isn't something I went in to, but it blatantly is insular if they won't interact with people from outside of their faith group. And, again, why should a child be condemned to that insular existence?
My friends daughter was being taught things which were inaccurate about a different faith which is as bad as not being taught anything.
And people in faith schools are taught things which are incorrect or negatively spun about history, culture, other religions and science.
Sometimes that's deliberate, sometimes it's just poor teaching I don't doubt.
I note you still haven't addressed the question I asked which is, I believe, at the crux of this discussion: do you believe that a parent's religious affiliation trumps their child's right to self-determination?
O.
-
My friends daughter was being taught things which were inaccurate about a different faith which is as bad as not being taught anything.
Maybe so, just as people are taught things which are inaccurate about humanism and atheism. In neither case do I see that as a good thing.
But if there is active encouragement for integrated education, as opposed to the current situation, where ensure each little faith community has its own insular school, then your friend's daughter would be much more likely to get an accurate picture, because guess what the child sat next to her might pipe up and say 'no, miss, it isn't like that, we do this' and put the teacher right if something inaccurate is being portrayed.
-
Children should be taught the basis of all the main world's religions as a general knowledge exercise, not as a means of proselytising.
-
Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?
I'm not, we almost had a large community of Hasidic Jews live within walking distance from my home, objectors said it would lead to ghettoisation, whatever that is.
Unfortunately the objectors won. >:(
I was very disappointed, I would have loved some Jewish neighbours even if they kept to themselves.
Unfortunately I think both you and the NSS have some very unrealistic expectations of sections of our society which is going to cause more resentment, rather than less.
You really do need to try and see the other POV before you start inflicting your ideals on them.
Attitudes like yours just get used by extremists as ammunition.
Blimey you really are losing it now.
No I don't object and actually I have lived in areas of north London that have a large jewish community. Currently (I fully accept) I live in an area that has a smaller jewish community but is erasable mixed, with a large muslim population nearby. Certainly very mixed considering it is a pretty affluent area. And I work in one of the most diverse melting pots in the country if not europe.
And no I don't like mono-cultures, I like to live, work, socialise etc etc with people from all sorts of backgrounds and indeed that's what I do.
And no I don't have unreasonable expectations at all. We've had a problem over the past few decades with successive governments pandering to a multicultural agenda, which was never what I consider multiculturalism to be. Effectively the agenda promulgated was one where groups (often defined by religion or nationality) were supported in living completely separate lives although maybe within a similar geographic area, so that the did not interact. And a key component was effectively separate schooling.
That's not multiculturalism to me. In my view multiculturalism is where interactions are supported and over time communities evolve as they take on aspects of other communities. And in doing so that interaction is much more likely to be respectful and supportive, rather than the current suspicions of 'them' who are different and we don't have anything to do with.
I fully understand that some communities are resistant to this, but that's social engineering as your are very unlikely to see this kind of suspicious behaviour between a group of 4 year olds. And in the interests of individual freedoms I think it is important for government to encourage integration and to provide opportunities for the children of parents from one cultural background or religion to choose a different path for themselves as well, of course, as having the opportunity to retain that religion of cultural heritage.
That's what freedom of religion means - it is about the individual being free to chose their religion regardless of their background. It isn't about saying that a religion and its culture must be allowed to socially engineer to make it extremely difficult for an individual to exercise their freedom to chose their religion (which of course may mean choosing a religion that isn't the same as their parents, or even to become non religious).
-
When they are children yes, they are a part of their parents community and are part of a family unit.
Then that's where we disagree. I don't see that the parents' have the right to limit the child's future. That's the underlying principle that the NSS' position on education is founded upon. The fact that a child is born to Orthodox Jewish parents should mean their childhood is deprived of the full richness of human experience.
No one, IMO, has more rights than a parent, when it comes to the religious community and family a child belongs to.
Not even the child?
No one, not even a teacher has a right to break that up. ( only the social services if something is going on, that breaks other expectations, such as abuse)
That I'd agree on - the right to family security is important, more important that other people's opinion on how your family is organised, but not more important than the child's right to know that there are other ways of living out there.
Children don't have self determination until they are older, unless someone starts grooming them especially young children.
And that's what religious schooling is about, it's about grooming them. That's what the insular mechanic of Orthodox Judaism is about, it's about isolating them from ideas and depicting the outside world as 'other'. As you say, children don't have self-determination until they're older, but they don't have informed choices if they're never exposed to the implications and benefits of those choices.
O.
-
No, my objection is they didn't do their research properly before setting a question, and that people such as yourself use terms like " tribal" "insular" and " unsocial" to judge someone else's religion because you can't be bothered to see a different POV or even explore why it wouldn't happen.
It's insular - why it's insular isn't something I went in to, but it blatantly is insular if they won't interact with people from outside of their faith group. And, again, why should a child be condemned to that insular existence?
My friends daughter was being taught things which were inaccurate about a different faith which is as bad as not being taught anything.
And people in faith schools are taught things which are incorrect or negatively spun about history, culture, other religions and science.
Sometimes that's deliberate, sometimes it's just poor teaching I don't doubt.
I note you still haven't addressed the question I asked which is, I believe, at the crux of this discussion: do you believe that a parent's religious affiliation trumps their child's right to self-determination?
O.
When they are children yes, they are a part of their parents community and are part of a family unit.
No one, IMO, has more rights than a parent, when it comes to the religious community and family a child belongs to.
No one, not even a teacher has a right to break that up. ( only the social services if something is going on, that breaks other expectations, such as abuse)
Children don't have self determination until they are older, unless someone starts grooming them, especially young children.
With rights come responsibilities Rose.
People are often all too quick to talk about their 'rights' but too slow to recognise their 'responsibilities'.
If you believe in freedom of religion then one of your responsibilities as a parent is to support your children in being able to exercise that freedom of religion as they are growing up. A parent that does not offer the opportunity for their child to take a different path to themselves should they chose either doesn't understand what freedom of religion is, or if they do aren't really taking their responsibilities seriously. Or perhaps they don't really believe in freedom of religion.
-
No one, IMO, has more rights than a parent, when it comes to the religious community and family a child belongs to.
Not even the child?
[/quote]Game, set and match.
-
Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?
You do understand what a non-sense statement that is.
By definition ghettoisation is where one culture group lives next to people of the same cultural group. So if a jewish family moved next door to me that wouldn't by definition be ghettoisation as they be living next door on one side to a 'mixed faith' family with parents atheist and catholic, and on the other (either way) to families that are not actively religious (no idea whether atheist, agnostic etc, not the kind of conversation I tend to have). And up and down the road I know of practicing anglicans, muslims, practicing and non practicing jewish families. And of course (this being the UK) a majority that aren't actively involved in any religion.
Some 'ghetto'.
-
Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?
You do understand what a non-sense statement that is.
By definition ghettoisation is where one culture group lives next to people of the same cultural group. So if a jewish family moved next door to me that wouldn't by definition be ghettoisation as they be living next door on one side to a 'mixed faith' family with parents atheist and catholic, and on the other (either way) to families that are not actively religious (no idea whether atheist, agnostic etc, not the kind of conversation I tend to have). And up and down the road I know of practicing anglicans, muslims, practicing and non practicing jewish families. And of course (this being the UK) a majority that aren't actively involved in any religion.
Some 'ghetto'.
No, what was proposed was that the Hasidic Jewish community moved enmasse and in effect took over a whole area, within walking distance from me.
They weren't dispersed among people of other faiths, the proposal was they move in almost like a little village .....
They would have had their own shops schools etc
I didn't have an issue with that.
Some people saw that as leading to ghettoisation
Well unsurprisingly, given that I believe in integration, integrated schooling and people from different backgrounds and cultures living together, working together and interacting together as a community, yes I would have a problem with that.
And don't get me wrong this isn't anything to do with religion - I'd have the same issue if the group was from any other cultural background.
To suggest this is appropriate is the grossest form of social engineering - but I thought you were against social engineering, clearly not.
Groups of people with different cultural backgrounds living together (i.e. near each other) but effectively separate (i.e. never interacting) is a problem.
-
No, what was proposed was that the Hasidic Jewish community moved enmasse and in effect took over a whole area, within walking distance from me.
They weren't dispersed among people of other faiths, the proposal was they move in almost like a little village .....
They would have had their own shops schools etc
I didn't have an issue with that.
Some people saw that as leading to ghettoisation
I can't imagine why people would think that building a complete, segregated community for a sub-culture would be seen as ghettoisation?
ghetto (plural ghettos or ghettoes or ghetti)
An (often walled) area of a city in which Jews are concentrated by force and law. (Used particularly of areas in medieval Italy and in Nazi-controlled Europe.) [quotations ▼]
An (often impoverished) area of a city inhabited predominantly by members of a specific nationality, ethnicity or race. [quotations ▼]
An area in which people who are distinguished by sharing something other than ethnicity concentrate or are concentrated.
Oh, that's why - because it's pretty much the definition of a ghetto.
O.
-
Oh! Are you one of those people who object to Jews coming to live next to you because it leads to "ghettoisation" ?
You do understand what a non-sense statement that is.
By definition ghettoisation is where one culture group lives next to people of the same cultural group. So if a jewish family moved next door to me that wouldn't by definition be ghettoisation as they be living next door on one side to a 'mixed faith' family with parents atheist and catholic, and on the other (either way) to families that are not actively religious (no idea whether atheist, agnostic etc, not the kind of conversation I tend to have). And up and down the road I know of practicing anglicans, muslims, practicing and non practicing jewish families. And of course (this being the UK) a majority that aren't actively involved in any religion.
Some 'ghetto'.
No, what was proposed was that the Hasidic Jewish community moved enmasse and in effect took over a whole area, within walking distance from me.
They weren't dispersed among people of other faiths, the proposal was they move in almost like a little village .....
They would have had their own shops schools etc
I didn't have an issue with that.
Some people saw that as leading to ghettoisation
Well unsurprisingly, given that I believe in integration, integrated schooling and people from different backgrounds and cultures living together, working together and interacting together as a community, yes I would have a problem with that.
And don't get me wrong this isn't anything to do with religion - I'd have the same issue if the group was from any other cultural background.
To suggest this is appropriate is the grossest form of social engineering - but I thought you were against social engineering, clearly not.
Groups of people with different cultural backgrounds living together (i.e. near each other) but effectively separate (i.e. never interacting) is a problem.
Not always, the Jewish community in London have been doing it for years.
Plus when we have had large numbers of migrants they have always been put together by the state anyway, thinking of the ones I met at about 13 when Amin threw them all out, before they all seemed to move to Leicester.
It's not their fault, in a lot of cases that's where they were put.
Also people who share the same culture and language always seem to want to live near each other and naturally seem to group together.
British ex pats in Spain and Portugal being an example.
I think there is a natural tendency for people to want to have a decent number of people of the same cultural background as them around. That's not what I am talking about. I am talking about engineering a situation where a group detaches itself from the rest of society and lives in isolation. That's isn't good, whether you are talking about the jewish community, ex pats in spain or groups of new immigrants. And where local authorities are involved they should pander to that social engineering extreme.
So where there are large groups of immigrants arriving it is best to distribute these people into many communities in such a way that they still have sufficient 'like minded' support network, but necessarily will need to start integrating with the rest of the community. And of course the best and easiest way to do this is through education and schooling. So the child of refugees for example rapidly starts learning english at school and integrating with the rest of the community. They can help break down language barriers with the rest of the community etc. But that doesn't mean they lose their cultural background.
I can think of countless examples of such communities. Think of the west of Scotland italian communities (also in Welsh valleys) - exceptionally well integrated, but also retaining a proud heritage of their italian origins. Plus of course responsible for some major ice cream output!
-
Plus when we have had large numbers of migrants they have always been put together by the state anyway, thinking of the ones I met at about 13 when Amin threw them all out, before they all seemed to move to Leicester.
The Ugandan asian refugees of the 1970s are an excellent example of integration. Although you might have thought they all ended up in Leicester (and sure a lot did) the greatest number ended up in London but many also elsewhere.
But as a group there was a strong focus on integration and education (I knew a few in school and had a couple of friends at university - sadly one since died) from that community. There was never a sense that they wanted to keep themselves to themselves to the exclusion of the existing communities. Quite the opposite, most I knew were absolutely dedicate to integrate into the existing communities and indeed to educate themselves and work hard, succeed and to rise to the top levels within that community. And many have done, including Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, John Sentamu, Shriti Vadera and others.
Should point out, of course, that unlike the other two John Sentamu wasn't a Ugandan asian but was a refugee from the Amin regime.
-
My best friend growing up was an Asian girl of Indian descent whose family came here because of Amin. They most definitely did integrate very well; she was allowed to go to all kinds of places with me and even came on holiday with us, whilst I benefitted hugely from joining her cultural celebrations as family. Her parents and mine even exchanged Christmas gifts.
-
My best friend growing up was an Asian girl of Indian descent whose family came here because of Amin. They most definitely did integrate very well; she was allowed to go to all kinds of places with me and even came on holiday with us, whilst I benefitted hugely from joining her cultural celebrations as family. Her parents and mine even exchanged Christmas gifts.
I think actually many of the Ugandan asians almost went to opposite extreme and remember they were two times migrants have earlier relocated from India in the late 19thC. So I think many wanted to actually become almost 'uber' members of the establishment - top doctors, top lawyers etc etc and out-Englishing the English so to speak. And many have been very successful.
-
I suppose the answer needs to be far wider-reaching than 'Christian' extremism, Floo. I can think of young people,bought up by fundamentalist Muslim, Hindu and atheist parents, who have exhibited far greater damage in later life than any from Christian extremist thinking that I've heard of.
In a way, I think that the appearance of this topic on the 'Christian Topic' board is misleading and should probably be on something like the Religion and Ethics board (though that could be a problem since some would then argue that it exonerates atheism). After all, Jesus' teaching - in fact,the whole of the New Testament - as well as the Bhavadgita and the Qur'an, deals with the route that people chose to take in life very differently from the extreme forms that many such extremist groups teach.
A least the atheist parents in general don't tell lies about things that they nor anyone else can possibly know.
I doubt very much that religious believers point out the difference between beliefs and established facts and if they do I'll take a bet it's kept low key.
ippy
And how on earth do you know that? A truly absurd assertion. It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in - didn't you know that?
-
And how on earth do you know that? A truly absurd assertion. It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in - didn't you know that?
That's true, as we've seen in such cases as the Soviet era, where atheism was indoctrinated. The NSS explicitly is wanting to avoid that, they are actively in favour of a broad-based curriculum of Religious Education about all faiths to all children - the exact opposite of indoctrination.
BA, I appreciate your comment was in response to particular comments from Ippy, but I didn't want the NSS case to be lost in the fray.
O.
-
And how on earth do you know that? A truly absurd assertion. It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in - didn't you know that?
That's true, as we've seen in such cases as the Soviet era, where atheism was indoctrinated. The NSS explicitly is wanting to avoid that, they are actively in favour of a broad-based curriculum of Religious Education about all faiths to all children - the exact opposite of indoctrination.
BA, I appreciate your comment was in response to particular comments from Ippy, but I didn't want the NSS case to be lost in the fray.
O.
Fair enough.
-
And how on earth do you know that? A truly absurd assertion. It's not just religion you can indoctrinate people in - didn't you know that?
That's true, as we've seen in such cases as the Soviet era, where atheism was indoctrinated. The NSS explicitly is wanting to avoid that, they are actively in favour of a broad-based curriculum of Religious Education about all faiths to all children - the exact opposite of indoctrination.
BA, I appreciate your comment was in response to particular comments from Ippy, but I didn't want the NSS case to be lost in the fray.
O.
There is often a suggestion that the ideal is a broad and balanced education, and of course I agree. But that is sometimes merely an ideal and given the amount we wish our children to learn and the limited amount of time something has to give, breadth or balance (or actually depth of learning).
In the case of RE (which let's face it is an opinion-based subject rather than a 'fact' based subject, such as maths or science) then I think it is critical that balance is maintained. It is better that children learn a little about a range of opinions, religious and non religious in a philosophical context and therefore are able to balance and recognise that a 'range of opinions are available' rather than to lose balance and have the curriculum dominated by a single point of view (whether that be a specific religion or humanism etc). In that way balance would be lost and the children may end up feeling that this is the 'only' approach. Better actually not to cover anything rather than to provide an grossly unbalanced curriculum in my opinion.
-
There is often a suggestion that the ideal is a broad and balanced education, and of course I agree. But that is sometimes merely an ideal and given the amount we wish our children to learn and the limited amount of time something has to give, breadth or balance (or actually depth of learning).
That, then, becomes a question of 'is religious education of sufficient merit to justify time on the curriculum at all', rather than should people be able to replace religious education in single-faith schools with religious indoctrination.
In the case of RE (which let's face it is an opinion-based subject rather than a 'fact' based subject, such as maths or science) then I think it is critical that balance is maintained.
Religious Education is not opinion based. Religions definitively exist, even if the objects of their worship aren't demonstrable: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, these are all real organisations and traditions, with political, cultural and social impact and influence. In the modern world, where one of the more pressing clashes is the cultural interaction in an increasingly multi-cultural world, knowing at least some of the fundamentals of these is a useful part of an education.
It is better that children learn a little about a range of opinions, religious and non religious in a philosophical context and therefore are able to balance and recognise that a 'range of opinions are available' rather than to lose balance and have the curriculum dominated by a single point of view (whether that be a specific religion or humanism etc).
Absolutely agree, and that's what I'd advocate, and what the National Curriculum on religious education makes a reasonable fist at delivering; the problem comes when schools are given the right to ditch that in favour of their own faith-based, potentially insular viewpoint.
In that way balance would be lost and the children may end up feeling that this is the 'only' approach. Better actually not to cover anything rather than to provide an grossly unbalanced curriculum in my opinion.
I disagree, I think they're just different kinds of terrible: both of them create situations where ignorance leads to categorisation of 'other'. Children should be exposed to these ideas and traditions and cultures so that they are normalised, and then much of the fear and suspicion that feeds into racism and religious bigotry would be undermined at source.
O.
-
There is often a suggestion that the ideal is a broad and balanced education, and of course I agree. But that is sometimes merely an ideal and given the amount we wish our children to learn and the limited amount of time something has to give, breadth or balance (or actually depth of learning).
That, then, becomes a question of 'is religious education of sufficient merit to justify time on the curriculum at all', rather than should people be able to replace religious education in single-faith schools with religious indoctrination.
Indeed - see comment below.
In the case of RE (which let's face it is an opinion-based subject rather than a 'fact' based subject, such as maths or science) then I think it is critical that balance is maintained.
Religious Education is not opinion based. Religions definitively exist, even if the objects of their worship aren't demonstrable: Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, these are all real organisations and traditions, with political, cultural and social impact and influence. In the modern world, where one of the more pressing clashes is the cultural interaction in an increasingly multi-cultural world, knowing at least some of the fundamentals of these is a useful part of an education.
Sorry I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by opinion based, or perhaps I didn't explain it properly. Of course religions and religious belief exists, but what I am talking about is that whether or not someone choses to be part of a religion, their acceptance or otherwise of the moral teaching is opinion-based. In my opinion homosexuality is fine, in the opinion of someone else it isn't fine (perhaps based on religious teaching. So in a manner this is similar to politics - our alignment with different politics views is opinion, there is no 'fact' - you cannot prove that right wing ideology is 'better' than left wing ideology but it may be your opinion that it is. Same with religion. But I guess at least with politics you can more clearly see the effects of implementation of policy, whereas many of the claims of religion (specifically gods, life after death etc) cannot be assessed. So where we are discussing differences of opinion (whether religious or political) as part of education (and certainly state education) balance and lack of bias is key - otherwise it appears that one opinion is favoured by the state.
It is better that children learn a little about a range of opinions, religious and non religious in a philosophical context and therefore are able to balance and recognise that a 'range of opinions are available' rather than to lose balance and have the curriculum dominated by a single point of view (whether that be a specific religion or humanism etc).
Absolutely agree, and that's what I'd advocate, and what the National Curriculum on religious education makes a reasonable fist at delivering; the problem comes when schools are given the right to ditch that in favour of their own faith-based, potentially insular viewpoint.
Indeed - parents may chose to 'unbalance' their children's education toward one religious or political opinion, but the state, and therefore state funded schools, should never be party to that 'unbalancing'.
In that way balance would be lost and the children may end up feeling that this is the 'only' approach. Better actually not to cover anything rather than to provide an grossly unbalanced curriculum in my opinion.
I disagree, I think they're just different kinds of terrible: both of them create situations where ignorance leads to categorisation of 'other'. Children should be exposed to these ideas and traditions and cultures so that they are normalised, and then much of the fear and suspicion that feeds into racism and religious bigotry would be undermined at source.
O.
Referring back to your earlier response, I'm not sure we are disagreeing. Effectively what I am saying is that RE must be balanced, or it should be ditched from the curriculum altogether. I'm not actually convinced of the arguments that RE must be essential due to the importance of religion. Sure it is desirable for children to learn about all sorts of things, but there are things which fail to be covered in the standard curriculum (or barely covered) - for example much of political thought and opinion, that have far greater impact on society and everyone in it than religion. Certainly in the UK it is pretty easy to live your life with barely a ripple of influence from religion, and indeed most people do. The importance placed on religion within the school curriculum outstrips its importance within society, and more specifically the younger population in society.
-
Sorry I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by opinion based, or perhaps I didn't explain it properly. Of course religions and religious belief exists, but what I am talking about is that whether or not someone choses to be part of a religion, their acceptance or otherwise of the moral teaching is opinion-based.
Apologies, yes, I did take it rather more simplistically than it appears you'd intended. Despite that, I think the point still stands - religious education isn't about whether or not the individual child is or isn't from a particular tradition or whether or not the child 'should' adopt a particular position, that's an issue for the life outside of education and their personal choice. The education is about exposing them to the ideas and traditions of all of those religious outlooks so that a) they have an informed choice about which, if any, they might wish to join, and b) they have an understanding of the multiplicity of people who might be in their community.
In my opinion homosexuality is fine, in the opinion of someone else it isn't fine (perhaps based on religious teaching. So in a manner this is similar to politics - our alignment with different politics views is opinion, there is no 'fact' - you cannot prove that right wing ideology is 'better' than left wing ideology but it may be your opinion that it is. Same with religion. But I guess at least with politics you can more clearly see the effects of implementation of policy, whereas many of the claims of religion (specifically gods, life after death etc) cannot be assessed. So where we are discussing differences of opinion (whether religious or political) as part of education (and certainly state education) balance and lack of bias is key - otherwise it appears that one opinion is favoured by the state.
I don't disagree, and I think there's certainly an argument for including the fundamentals of political positions in PHSE lessons at some point, especially as students approach the point where they are eligible to vote, which is increasingly looking like it might drop to 16 in the near future.
Indeed - parents may chose to 'unbalance' their children's education toward one religious or political opinion, but the state, and therefore state funded schools, should never be party to that 'unbalancing'.
I don't think, on review, that we're that far apart on our thinking :)
[quote Referring back to your earlier response, I'm not sure we are disagreeing.
See, told you :P
Effectively what I am saying is that RE must be balanced, or it should be ditched from the curriculum altogether. I'm not actually convinced of the arguments that RE must be essential due to the importance of religion.
I think, in the current climate, no education is worse than poor education, but I think that single-faith indoctrination is no education at all. I'd love a world where the general culture was so mixed and accepting that we didn't need that education in the schools, and religious education was unnecessary and we could spend the time in schools on more progressive topics.
Certainly in the UK it is pretty easy to live your life with barely a ripple of influence from religion, and indeed most people do.
In some places that's the case, in others in the UK it really isn't, and in the international sense it's increasingly difficult to separate political and religious sentiment with the Islamic upheaval in the middle East and America's continued internal fundamentalist Christian pressure.
O.
-
Sorry I think you are misunderstanding what I meant by opinion based, or perhaps I didn't explain it properly. Of course religions and religious belief exists, but what I am talking about is that whether or not someone choses to be part of a religion, their acceptance or otherwise of the moral teaching is opinion-based.
Apologies, yes, I did take it rather more simplistically than it appears you'd intended. Despite that, I think the point still stands - religious education isn't about whether or not the individual child is or isn't from a particular tradition or whether or not the child 'should' adopt a particular position, that's an issue for the life outside of education and their personal choice. The education is about exposing them to the ideas and traditions of all of those religious outlooks so that a) they have an informed choice about which, if any, they might wish to join, and b) they have an understanding of the multiplicity of people who might be in their community.
In my opinion homosexuality is fine, in the opinion of someone else it isn't fine (perhaps based on religious teaching. So in a manner this is similar to politics - our alignment with different politics views is opinion, there is no 'fact' - you cannot prove that right wing ideology is 'better' than left wing ideology but it may be your opinion that it is. Same with religion. But I guess at least with politics you can more clearly see the effects of implementation of policy, whereas many of the claims of religion (specifically gods, life after death etc) cannot be assessed. So where we are discussing differences of opinion (whether religious or political) as part of education (and certainly state education) balance and lack of bias is key - otherwise it appears that one opinion is favoured by the state.
I don't disagree, and I think there's certainly an argument for including the fundamentals of political positions in PHSE lessons at some point, especially as students approach the point where they are eligible to vote, which is increasingly looking like it might drop to 16 in the near future.
Indeed - parents may chose to 'unbalance' their children's education toward one religious or political opinion, but the state, and therefore state funded schools, should never be party to that 'unbalancing'.
I don't think, on review, that we're that far apart on our thinking :)
[quote Referring back to your earlier response, I'm not sure we are disagreeing.
See, told you :P
Effectively what I am saying is that RE must be balanced, or it should be ditched from the curriculum altogether. I'm not actually convinced of the arguments that RE must be essential due to the importance of religion.
I think, in the current climate, no education is worse than poor education, but I think that single-faith indoctrination is no education at all. I'd love a world where the general culture was so mixed and accepting that we didn't need that education in the schools, and religious education was unnecessary and we could spend the time in schools on more progressive topics.
Certainly in the UK it is pretty easy to live your life with barely a ripple of influence from religion, and indeed most people do.
In some places that's the case, in others in the UK it really isn't, and in the international sense it's increasingly difficult to separate political and religious sentiment with the Islamic upheaval in the middle East and America's continued internal fundamentalist Christian pressure.
O.
I guess the question is about the relationship between religion and geo-politics.
Certainly there are major conflicts that may affect people in the UK, including the risk of terrorist activities, but the point is whether we need actually to understand the 'fundamentals' or merely the kind of geopolitics.
So perhaps an analogy to my own childhood. I was brought up through the 1970s and early 80s which was a time of major conflict in Northern Ireland which impacted the UK greatly (arguably far more greatly than the current ISIS threat). Now, without doubt there was a clear religious element to the conflict, but was it necessary to understand the differences between protestant and catholic theology to gain an understanding of the conflict. I'm really not sure it was - of course that level of in depth knowledge may be useful, but the geopolitics was more about the historical interaction between Britain and Ireland, rather than directly about differences in religious belief (although there is an underpinning there). So in the absence of huge amounts of time to study everything, I think the most important elements to understand were the geopolitics and not the religion per se.
So back to current geo-political situation - a major element to the current conflicts relate to similar sectarian divisions between shia and sunni islam. Does an understanding of the distinctions between the two really help us understand the conflict, rather than simply a recognition (as with protestant and catholic) of long standing animosity and conflict between the two sectarian factions. Likewise is an understanding of the differences between Islam and Judaism essential to understand the current conflict between Israel and other countries in the middle east - I'm not sure it is. And certainly knowing about the geo-politics but not about the distinctions between the religions on a theological level is going to take you far further toward understanding the conflict than the other way around.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Really? ;D ;D ;D
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
Scotty, dial the Assertotron to 11!
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way. No one can force them as history shows. Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people can choose what to believe in the first place.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Force, perhaps not, but you can certainly control the information to which they are exposed during their formative years, moulding and shaping their intellectual architecture to put undue warrant unsubstantiated claims and singular world-views.
O.
-
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Force, perhaps not, but you can certainly control the information to which they are exposed during their formative years, moulding and shaping their intellectual architecture to put undue warrant unsubstantiated claims and singular world-views.
O.
Sad, but unfortunately, true.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
Scotty, dial the Assertotron to 11!
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way. No one can force them as history shows. Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people can choose what to believe in the first place.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Force, perhaps not, but you can certainly control the information to which they are exposed during their formative years, moulding and shaping their intellectual architecture to put undue warrant unsubstantiated claims and singular world-views.
O.
Quite a number of the ultra religious even home school their kids so they are not subjected to secular views!
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
Scotty, dial the Assertotron to 11!
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way. No one can force them as history shows. Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people can choose what to believe in the first place.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Force, perhaps not, but you can certainly control the information to which they are exposed during their formative years, moulding and shaping their intellectual architecture to put undue warrant unsubstantiated claims and singular world-views.
O.
Quite a number of ...
Evidence!
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Really? ;D ;D ;D
So why aren't you a believer? Did you not realise you are an example...
People have to choose God. Would have thought that truth obvious to you. :o
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
How can non-christians expect their children to be saved if they have no part in the truth about Christ?
The Christians belong to God, you don't. All by your own choice of course.
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
It is nothing to do with the sins of the parents. Children are not punished for their parents sin.
Have to think up something better than that.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
Scotty, dial the Assertotron to 11!
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way. No one can force them as history shows. Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people can choose what to believe in the first place.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Force, perhaps not, but you can certainly control the information to which they are exposed during their formative years, moulding and shaping their intellectual architecture to put undue warrant unsubstantiated claims and singular world-views.
O.
Quite a number of the ultra religious even home school their kids so they are not subjected to secular views!
Actually it's more sinister than that. Some very religious educate their children at home to retain the right to use corporal punishment as they believe it to be set out in the Bible, especially in the US. I have spoken to a woman on an MB who had fallen under the spell of an ultra evangelical couple whilst living in France who quite literally had a rod for hitting their child, as also happens in the States. Myself and a couple of other parents were trying to persuade her of how wrong this was but she was so utterly convinced that this 'mature Christian couple' had all the answers that I very much fear she ignored us.
-
How can non-christians expect their children to be saved if they have no part in the truth about Christ?
Easily answered: they don't, since they they probably regard (as I do) the 'saved' idea as being no more than contrived religious superstition.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Really? ;D ;D ;D
So why aren't you a believer? Did you not realise you are an example...
People have to choose God. Would have thought that truth obvious to you. :o
Your 'truth' and credibility are at odds! ;D
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
Scotty, dial the Assertotron to 11!
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way. No one can force them as history shows. Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people can choose what to believe in the first place.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Force, perhaps not, but you can certainly control the information to which they are exposed during their formative years, moulding and shaping their intellectual architecture to put undue warrant unsubstantiated claims and singular world-views.
O.
Quite a number of the ultra religious even home school their kids so they are not subjected to secular views!
Actually it's more sinister than that. Some very religious educate their children at home to retain the right to use corporal punishment as they believe it to be set out in the Bible, especially in the US. I have spoken to a woman on an MB who had fallen under the spell of an ultra evangelical couple whilst living in France who quite literally had a rod for hitting their child, as also happens in the States. Myself and a couple of other parents were trying to persuade her of how wrong this was but she was so utterly convinced that this 'mature Christian couple' had all the answers that I very much fear she ignored us.
As a home schooler in the past, and having a daughter who now home schools her sons, I am aware that there are quite a number of weirdo religious nutters who home school their kids. They say that they don't want their kids influenced by people who don't think their way. There are groups home schoolers can join to meet up with others as I did and my daughter does.
I think school inspectors should be obliged to visit ALL home schoolers to check up on the education they are getting. I invited the inspectors in when I home schooled our son, and my daughter does the same.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
NO! It is 2,000 year old bollocks! (if you and your people can dismiss my beliefs, beliefs that existed yonks before yours as rubbish I am entitled to do the same to yours!)
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
Sass your unbelievable claptrap gets worse by the day! ::)
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
Scotty, dial the Assertotron to 11!
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way. No one can force them as history shows. Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people can choose what to believe in the first place.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
Force, perhaps not, but you can certainly control the information to which they are exposed during their formative years, moulding and shaping their intellectual architecture to put undue warrant unsubstantiated claims and singular world-views.
O.
Quite a number of the ultra religious even home school their kids so they are not subjected to secular views!
Actually it's more sinister than that. Some very religious educate their children at home to retain the right to use corporal punishment as they believe it to be set out in the Bible, especially in the US. I have spoken to a woman on an MB who had fallen under the spell of an ultra evangelical couple whilst living in France who quite literally had a rod for hitting their child, as also happens in the States. Myself and a couple of other parents were trying to persuade her of how wrong this was but she was so utterly convinced that this 'mature Christian couple' had all the answers that I very much fear she ignored us.
As a home schooler in the past, and having a daughter who now home schools her sons, I am aware that there are quite a number of weirdo religious nutters who home school their kids. They say that they don't want their kids influenced by people who don't think their way. There are groups home schoolers can join to meet up with others as I did and my daughter does.
I think school inspectors should be obliged to visit ALL home schoolers to check up on the education they are getting. I invited the inspectors in when I home schooled our son, and my daughter does the same.
Is your daughter a religious nutter, then?
-
"unbelievable claptrap" Really now Floo, you need to stop and look at yourself in the mirror. I know you are one of the best at spewing unbelievable claptrap
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
Sass your unbelievable claptrap gets worse by the day! ::)
If anyone is away with the fairies I suppose they don't even realise how far it is they're away with the fairies.
ippy
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
NO! It is 2,000 year old bollocks! (if you and your people can dismiss my beliefs, beliefs that existed yonks before yours as rubbish I am entitled to do the same to yours!)
Is that it~? Is that your attempt at a reasoned reply?
One God religion existed before your paganism... Look up the Chinese religion which predates anything you have believed in.
You see superstition is your beliefs but God, is not a superstition.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
Sass your unbelievable claptrap gets worse by the day! ::)
ALL THAT little sentence and from someone who does not know what 'claptrap' she is referring to and so cannot call it claptrap. Read the bible and avoid looking as ridiculous as your replies.
-
The children of Christians are already acceptable to God.
In time they will choose their own way. To accept and follow the LORD or to go their own way.
No one can force them as history shows.
Do you think it is just an excuse by people who themselves have made the choice and chose none belief.
What this thread is showing, is that you cannot force even a child to believe.
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
Sass your unbelievable claptrap gets worse by the day! ::)
If anyone is away with the fairies I suppose they don't even realise how far it is they're away with the fairies.
ippy
Hi Fairy Ippy,
Your reasoning is so far back in the wardrobe you are in Narnia.
How are things there? ;D
-
Is that it~? Is that your attempt at a reasoned reply?
One God religion existed before your paganism... Look up the Chinese religion which predates anything you have believed in.
You see superstition is your beliefs but God, is not a superstition.
I'll take 'irony' for 200 please - What is 'special pleading?'...
O.
-
And the children of non-Chrirtians are not?
Why? Is it a concept that the sin of the parents, being non-Christian, is passed to their children?
As usual Sass makes it up as she goes along! ;D
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
Acts 16:31King James Version (KJV)
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
It isn't made up it is a fact.
King James Bible
For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Deuteronomy 30:6 “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.
The promises to believers are for their children too.
Sass your unbelievable claptrap gets worse by the day! ::)
If anyone is away with the fairies I suppose they don't even realise how far it is they're away with the fairies.
ippy
Hi Fairy Ippy,
Your reasoning is so far back in the wardrobe you are in Narnia.
How are things there? ;D
Hi there Sass good to hear from you, don't let my posts get to you.
Mind you, you do seem to share your belief in assertions with NM, he seems to be totally unable to understand that an assertion can't be used as evidence for another assertion, why do you think that is Sass?
ippy
-
I gave up sunday school when I was 10 ;) but then returned to church when I realised secular humanism was a load of highly suspect, man made old tosh.
Just seen this post of yours Vlad, so you've been totally unable to understand Secular Humanism from the age of ten right up to today?
Which bit of Secular Humanism is it you don't understand? I'll take a guess, all of it? Yes?
ippy
-
Hi there Sass good to hear from you, don't let my posts get to you.
Mind you, you do seem to share your belief in assertions with NM, he seems to be totally unable to understand that an assertion can't be used as evidence for another assertion, why do you think that is Sass?
ippy
Thanks for the laugh, Ippy
As if...your post would get to me... ;D ;D
Assertions or casting dispersions.
As Christianity requires neither can you explain why you appear Christianity uses assertions for evidence and what they are. Give us examples and tell us all about them....
I am sitting waiting patiently....... :P
-
Thanks for the laugh, Ippy
As if...your post would get to me... ;D ;D
Assertions or casting dispersions.
As Christianity requires neither can you explain why you appear Christianity uses assertions for evidence and what they are. Give us examples and tell us all about them....
I am sitting waiting patiently....... :P
Here's one for you Sass:
"How can non-christians expect their children to be saved if they have no part in the truth about Christ?
The Christians belong to God, you don't. All by your own choice of course".
I found this lot of yours within one of your posts on this thread, it was in amongst another one of your interminable quote the bible dirges.
There's plenty like it some more obvious than others, they often start with god says or Jesus taught us to, etc etc, mostly contained within or alongside three quarters of one bible or another that you're banging on about.
ippy
-
Thanks for the laugh, Ippy
As if...your post would get to me... ;D ;D
Assertions or casting dispersions.
As Christianity requires neither can you explain why you appear to assume Christianity uses assertions for evidence and what they are. Give us examples and tell us all about them....
I am sitting waiting patiently....... :P
Whose wriggling now?
Answer the Post Ippy. What Assertions is Christianity using as EVIDENCE... :)
-
Thanks for the laugh, Ippy
As if...your post would get to me... ;D ;D
Assertions or casting dispersions.
As Christianity requires neither can you explain why you appear Christianity uses assertions for evidence and what they are. Give us examples and tell us all about them....
I am sitting waiting patiently....... :P
Here's one for you Sass:
"How can non-christians expect their children to be saved if they have no part in the truth about Christ?
The Christians belong to God, you don't. All by your own choice of course".
I found this lot of yours within one of your posts on this thread, it was in amongst another one of your interminable quote the bible dirges.
There's plenty like it some more obvious than others, they often start with god says or Jesus taught us to, etc etc, mostly contained within or alongside three quarters of one bible or another that you're banging on about.
ippy
Once you realise you are on the wrong track and actually understand Christianity by studying it, you will have the answer for yourself.
God has been with man since the beginning of time.
A none Christian would not even be thinking about their children being saved if they do not believe in God or Christ.
The reply by yourself has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I previously said in my post to you. And it certainly cannot be used regarding Christianity as it is about non-christians. Does your confusion have no end to it? :o
-
God has been with man since the beginning of time.
This is the kind of utter rubbish that is the basis of the objection to enforced religious education by any specific religious group.
You still cannot grasp that Paganism existed for thousands of years before your Christ's father rearded his ugly head! You anly have to look to the Roman Gods and the Greek ones that werre in exzistence on the day BEFOIRE your Christ was born! Before he started preaching no-one had even heard of his father!
-
This is the kind of utter rubbish that is the basis of the objection to enforced religious education by any specific religious group.
You still cannot grasp that Paganism existed for thousands of years before your Christ's father rearded his ugly head! You anly have to look to the Roman Gods and the Greek ones that werre in exzistence on the day BEFOIRE your Christ was born! Before he started preaching no-one had even heard of his father!
Sass is always right, repeat that 100 times you naughty boy! ;D
-
Sass is always right, repeat that 100 times you naughty boy! ;D
Yeah! A lifetime in her own legend!
-
Once you realise you are on the wrong track and actually understand Christianity by studying it, you will have the answer for yourself.
God has been with man since the beginning of time.
A none Christian would not even be thinking about their children being saved if they do not believe in God or Christ.
The reply by yourself has absolutely NOTHING to do with what I previously said in my post to you. And it certainly cannot be used regarding Christianity as it is about non-christians. Does your confusion have no end to it? :o
So the following words written, I assume by you, isn't just another one of your assertions; looks very much like an assertion to me, as follows, a repeat because it looks like you missed it the first time I pointed it out to you:
"How can non-christians expect their children to be saved if they have no part in the truth about Christ?
The Christians belong to God, you don't. All by your own choice of course".
You make so many assertions it seems you don't even realise when you're presenting yet another.
ippy
PS I noticed there's another two assertions of yours in your post 203 on this thread.
-
Yeah! A lifetime in her own legend!
;D
-
This is the kind of utter rubbish that is the basis of the objection to enforced religious education by any specific religious group.
You still cannot grasp that Paganism existed for thousands of years before your Christ's father rearded his ugly head! You anly have to look to the Roman Gods and the Greek ones that werre in exzistence on the day BEFOIRE your Christ was born! Before he started preaching no-one had even heard of his father!
Utter rubbish... paganism is just what you have because Christ's Father exists.
It is everything and anything that is untrue and no part of the truth about God.
Now there is more truth there then you can handle but I speak that it will sink in and nothing will stop it annoying you till you accept it.
Without God paganism would not exist... ;D Ain't that the truth...
-
So the following words written, I assume by you, isn't just another one of your assertions; looks very much like an assertion to me, as follows, a repeat because it looks like you missed it the first time I pointed it out to you:
"How can non-christians expect their children to be saved if they have no part in the truth about Christ?
The Christians belong to God, you don't. All by your own choice of course".
You make so many assertions it seems you don't even realise when you're presenting yet another.
ippy
PS I noticed there's another two assertions of yours in your post 203 on this thread.
I guess you know more about casting dispersions and aversions than assertions. You do enough of the previous two...l
-
Without God paganism would not exist... ;D Ain't that the truth...
No.
-
No.
It is true... you know it, I know it and so does the rest of the world.
Unless you are going to cherry pick it's origin.
Which SHAKES, you know you can't.
Who has an open mind now?
-
It is true...
No it isn't.
you know it, I know it and so does the rest of the world
No I don't, no you don't and no they don't.
Unless you are going to cherry pick it's origin.
Which SHAKES, you know you can't.
Who has an open mind now?
Who has a mind of any description at all, closed or otherwise? Not you, for sure.
-
This is the kind of utter rubbish that is the basis of the objection to enforced religious education by any specific religious group.
You still cannot grasp that Paganism existed for thousands of years before your Christ's father rearded his ugly head! You anly have to look to the Roman Gods and the Greek ones that werre in exzistence on the day BEFOIRE your Christ was born! Before he started preaching no-one had even heard of his father!
Sorry to disappoint you, Matt, but the Jews had heard about Christ's father long before Christ was born - they had been worshipping him for some 1500 years before Christ. Now, I'm not sure when the Roman Gods became popular - was it before the establishment of Rome in the 8th century BC or after; similarly, the Greek Gods - did they predate the development of the different Greek tribes or not? However, if you're goiing to try to make points that sound remotely viable, you need to get your facts correct.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Matt, but the Jews had heard about Christ's father long before Christ was born - they had been worshipping him for some 1500 years before Christ. Now, I'm not sure when the Roman Gods became popular - was it before the establishment of Rome in the 8th century BC or after; similarly, the Greek Gods - did they predate the development of the different Greek tribes or not? However, if you're goiing to try to make points that sound remotely viable, you need to get your facts correct.
Just because the Jews has been worshipping that unpleasant deity for a good while doesn't mean it actually exists, or anything attributed to it has any meaning.
-
Just because the Jews has been worshipping that unpleasant deity for a good while doesn't mean it actually exists, or anything attributed to it has any meaning.
I would disagree with your underlying premis, Floo, since that deity - who when all is said and done - is remarkably 'pleasant' when compared to the other deities of the time (or human nature of the time if you insist on the idea that there is no such thing as a deity).
However, the point of my post was to remind Matt that the deity concerned had been being worshipped for some 1500 years, contary to his claim that "Before he (Christ) started preaching no-one had even heard of his father!" In other words, said deity had been being worshipped (and had therefore been heard of) for as long as, if not longer than the Roman and Greek gods he consequently mentioned.
-
I would disagree with your underlying premis, Floo, since that deity - who when all is said and done - is remarkably 'pleasant' when compared to the other deities of the time (or human nature of the time if you insist on the idea that there is no such thing as a deity).
Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that the New Testament deity is less unpleasant that some of the contemporaries, I'd question a) whether he was better than all of the (the Greek and Roman pantheons, for instance, had a number of entirely more personable deities), b) whether the fact that the New Testament and Old Testament deity are supposed to be the same entity means that your God is capable of the mentality shown in the earlier work and c) whether the supposed perfect source of moral guidance shouldn't be noticably better than even the New Testament depiction.
However, the point of my post was to remind Matt that the deity concerned had been being worshipped for some 1500 years, contary to his claim that "Before he (Christ) started preaching no-one had even heard of his father!" In other words, said deity had been being worshipped (and had therefore been heard of) for as long as, if not longer than the Roman and Greek gods he consequently mentioned.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Whilst there is a thread of worship, the depiction of the deity that worshipped in those earlier days was a warrior god of a small pantheon, not the singular creator of all reality - the church stayed the same, but as its influence grew the theology changed to suit, almost as though it was being made up as it went along.
O.
-
I would disagree with your underlying premis, Floo, since that deity - who when all is said and done - is remarkably 'pleasant' when compared to the other deities of the time (or human nature of the time if you insist on the idea that there is no such thing as a deity).
However, the point of my post was to remind Matt that the deity concerned had been being worshipped for some 1500 years, contary to his claim that "Before he (Christ) started preaching no-one had even heard of his father!" In other words, said deity had been being worshipped (and had therefore been heard of) for as long as, if not longer than the Roman and Greek gods he consequently mentioned.
I doubt any other deity could be worse than the psycho featured in the Bible!
-
Whilst I wouldn't claim to have been first in the queue when intelligence was handed out, I have always been one of the awkward squad. It is therefore not surprising that in spite of my religious upbringing I started to question my faith, and when the answers didn't make any sense I lost it.
Ooh you old iconoclast floo! A woman after my own heart. More people should challenge establish beliefs.
Laws exist nowadays to protect kids, few parents would indoctrinate or put the fear of God into kids and schools have to be careful. Quite right too though there is nothing wrong in sharing your beliefs with your kids - if you didn't you would be buttoned up.
I was speaking of Christian parents: we have ultra-orthodox Jewish sects who live in particular areas (not communally but they are a community), who are very strict about dress, customs, religious observation and their schools do not give an all round education. The girls actually do a bit better than the boys whose main education is Torah and Talmud. No-one ever says anything against them, probably because there's no trouble, they are generally self regulated and when they do mix 'outside', they are good natured. However, one could accuse them of indoctrinating their kids.
-
I guess you know more about casting dispersions and aversions than assertions. You do enough of the previous two...l
Sass, fancy a game "spot the assertion", each time I see one of your posts I'll list out how many assertions you're making again, I know it seems like I'm setting myself up as judge and jury, but don't worry about that Sass, there's plenty on the forum that won't let me get away with anything.
Anyway I'll start judging any posts of yours I see from today and will let you know how many assertions per post you're doing; sounds fair to me Sass, what do you think?
If I wasn'doing this service for you, I don't think you'd realise how many times you keep on asserting time after time after time after time, only trying to help Sass.
ippy
P S I was thinking Sass, I know that doesn't often happen, spot the assertion wouldn't be fair to you, I'm so sorry Sass, I completly forgot the whole of the majority of your posts are assertions.
-
Sass, fancy a game "spot the assertion", each time I see one of your posts I'll list out how many assertions you're making again, I know it seems like I'm setting myself up as judge and jury, but don't worry about that Sass, there's plenty on the forum that won't let me get away with anything.
Anyway I'll start judging any posts of yours I see from today and will let you know how many assertions per post you're doing; sounds fair to me Sass, what do you think?
If I wasn'doing this service for you, I don't think you'd realise how many times you keep on asserting time after time after time after time, only trying to help Sass.
ippy
P S I was thinking Sass, I know that doesn't often happen, spot the assertion wouldn't be fair to you, I'm so sorry Sass, I completly forgot the whole of the majority of your posts are assertions.
What's up Sass, can't answer without making assertions?
ippy
-
Sass is always right, repeat that 100 times you naughty boy! ;D
Pots and kettles spring to mind Floo!
-
No it isn't.No I don't, no you don't and no they don't.Who has a mind of any description at all, closed or otherwise? Not you, for sure.
No argument there to support your position.
We can see clearly the closed mind you have.
-
What's up Sass, can't answer without making assertions?
ippy
Why not show us the assertions in my posts already made without using any assertions in the post you reply with.
Jesus Christ is a statement of fact.
God is a statement of fact.
Now you proving God didn't exist is impossible. Would be an assertion on your part wouldn't it.
Get the idea now. Was trying to save you some face. However, it is impossible sometimes because you are insistent if nothing else.
Smile God loves you. :D
-
Why not show us the assertions in my posts already made without using any assertions in the post you reply with.
Jesus Christ is a statement of fact.
God is a statement of fact.
Now you proving God didn't exist is impossible. Would be an assertion on your part wouldn't it.
Get the idea now. Was trying to save you some face. However, it is impossible sometimes because you are insistent if nothing else.
Smile God loves you. :D
Being loved by the evil b*stard, assuming it exists, would be worse than being loved by Hitler! >:(
-
Why the vehemence? I can understand someone not believing in God but not hating someone who they think does not exist. Pointless.
-
Being loved by the evil b*stard, assuming it exists, would be worse than being loved by Hitler! >:(
We are fully aware of your background, Floo, but can you point to any New Testament passages that teach that Christian parents or teachers should behave in the way you constantly tell us your parents did?
-
Why the vehemence? I can understand someone not believing in God but not hating someone who they think does not exist. Pointless.
It would be, if that were actually the case.
For most it isn't.
-
As the not so good book can be interpreted any which way, and the 'born again' mob interpret as you must be 'saved' or suffer nasty consequences if you don't, I think it is reasonable to point out, if that were true, what a ghastly faith position that is!
-
Being loved by the evil b*stard, assuming it exists, would be worse than being loved by Hitler! >:(
Double standard isn't it.
If God doesn't exist who does that leave to blame for all the evil in the world...
Hope your mirror is strong enough...
-
Double standard isn't it.
If God doesn't exist who does that leave to blame for all the evil in the world...
Hope your mirror is strong enough...
So you are saying if the deity exists it is responsible for all the evil in the world?
-
So you are saying if the deity exists it is responsible for all the evil in the world?
The OT does indeed say exactly that - Book of Isaiah IIRC. Maybe somebody will know the specific chapter and verse.
-
The OT does indeed say exactly that - Book of Isaiah IIRC. Maybe somebody will know the specific chapter and verse.
That being so humans cannot be blamed if some turn out bad!
-
It would be, if that were actually the case.
For most it isn't.
Not quite sure what you mean Shaker but there are people who make a big deal out of not believing and deep down they aren't sure. Certainly those of us who were somewhat indoctrinated as kids have a certain core and fear. Then there are those who hate the idea of a God, particularly a vengeful God.
The other thing is religion and the way it is sometimes presented and practised, many dislike that.
It isn't only Christianity, in its various forms, that can cause emotional abuse. Other faiths can have the same effect. It's my belief that kids should be encouraged to explore and make their own minds up, far healthier. However we are all influenced in some way by our upbringing, early environment, sometimes leaving scars; doesn't have to be religious. Letting go of the past is not easy.
-
Why not show us the assertions in my posts already made without using any assertions in the post you reply with.
Jesus Christ is a statement of fact.
God is a statement of fact.
Now you proving God didn't exist is impossible. Would be an assertion on your part wouldn't it.
Get the idea now. Was trying to save you some face. However, it is impossible sometimes because you are insistent if nothing else.
Smile God loves you. :D
4
ippy