"But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
Many Christians are hypocrites.
> "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> Many Christians are hypocrites.
Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > Many Christians are hypocrites.
> Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > Many Christians are hypocrites.
> Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
> "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> Many Christians are hypocrites.
> On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > Many Christians are hypocrites.
> > Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> > hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
> On Dec 3, 8:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > Many Christians are hypocrites.
> On Dec 3, 10:58 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 12:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
> > > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > > Many Christians are hypocrites.
> > > Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> > > hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
There is a time in recorded history not to distantly past when there
were virtually no athiests -- so if all the babies at that time were
"Christian babies" and "Muslim babies" and "Hindu babies" and the
like, how pray tell did atheists come about? Sounds to me like (gasp!)
evolution!!
On Dec 3, 3:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > Many Christians are hypocrites.
> Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
On Dec 4, 12:23 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:18 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:> chx
> > wow, is this woody or woody's daddy...or is it cut-n-paste?
> wow, is this checkers or checker's mommy...or is it Christian
> hypocrisy?
chx
wrong mr daddy woody, little woody would respond with 'Christian
checkers'
his grammar and spelling is worse than mine and he cannot post long
posts as the OP. how old is he? he is a one liner that replies with
that stupid cut-n-paste shit you prepared for him.
goes like this; 'little woody, if you don't understand what they wrote
then just post this shit.' am i right, that is spam.
> > On Dec 3, 8:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > Many Christians are hypocrites.- Hide quoted text -
On Dec 4, 12:10 am, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> There is a time in recorded history not to distantly past when there
> were virtually no athiests -- so if all the babies at that time were
> "Christian babies" and "Muslim babies" and "Hindu babies" and the
> like, how pray tell did atheists come about? Sounds to me like (gasp!)
> evolution!!
"Christian" is not a permanent, necessary label; one may indeed change
one's religion at any time, even if one has accepted it as an adult.
This is how atheists come about, generally; it is still the case that
most people were raised in a religion (with exceptions).
> On Dec 3, 3:56 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com>wrote:
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > Many Christians are hypocrites.
> > Seems to me, beings I am a Christian, that the atheist are working awfully
> > hard to make themselves *non-believers* in something.
> "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
"But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
misgiving,
'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
exception.
We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
baby is adamant that
one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
to children.
They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
child
at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
child abuse.
I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
accepted. We
don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
if
his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
'this
baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
nationality
is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
the point abundantly clear.
> On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> baby is adamant that
> one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> child abuse.
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> nationality
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> the point abundantly clear.
Actually replacing religion with nationality isn't valid. Nationality
is a passive description of a state. It describes where the person is
registered and requires as much input from the baby in question as
it's eyecolor or gender or who his biological parents are.
Religion is something the person needs to be able to form an opinion
about before you can assign a label to it. Dawkins' examples all
related to philosophical positions and religion is really nothing more
then that.
> On 4 dec, 12:53, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> > Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> > misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> > exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> > That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> > baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> > baby is adamant that
> > one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> > to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> > child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> > on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> > child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> > accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> > if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> > 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> > nationality
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> > refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> > this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> > to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> > the point abundantly clear.
> Actually replacing religion with nationality isn't valid. Nationality
> is a passive description of a state.
You are thinking of citizenship, not nationality. For example, all
Quebecers are Canadian citizens, but are considered in general to have
a different nationality than Canadians in general.
You are making the common confusion of conflating nation with nation-
state. Many nations are also nation-states, but it is not always the
case.
And even in that case, citizenship generally implies a notion of
confidence in the state and loyality to it, which are beliefs and
things that people need to be able to form an opinion about, as I
stated in some of the things I changed that referred to specific
beliefs ascribed to religion.
> registered and requires as much input from the baby in question as
> it's eyecolor or gender or who his biological parents are.
> Religion is something the person needs to be able to form an opinion
> about before you can assign a label to it. Dawkins' examples all
> related to philosophical positions and religion is really nothing more
> then that.
> On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> baby is adamant that
> one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> child abuse.
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> nationality
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> the point abundantly clear.- Hide quoted text -
> On Dec 4, 8:16 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4 dec, 12:53, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> > > Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> > > misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> > > exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> > > That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> > > baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> > > baby is adamant that
> > > one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> > > to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> > > child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> > > on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> > > child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> > > accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> > > if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> > > 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> > > nationality
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> > > refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> > > this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> > > to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> > > the point abundantly clear.
> > Actually replacing religion with nationality isn't valid. Nationality
> > is a passive description of a state.
> You are thinking of citizenship, not nationality. For example, all
> Quebecers are Canadian citizens, but are considered in general to have
> a different nationality than Canadians in general.
> You are making the common confusion of conflating nation with nation-
> state. Many nations are also nation-states, but it is not always the
> case.
> And even in that case, citizenship generally implies a notion of
> confidence in the state and loyality to it, which are beliefs and
> things that people need to be able to form an opinion about, as I
> stated in some of the things I changed that referred to specific
> beliefs ascribed to religion.
> It describes where the person is
> > registered and requires as much input from the baby in question as
> > it's eyecolor or gender or who his biological parents are.
> > Religion is something the person needs to be able to form an opinion
> > about before you can assign a label to it. Dawkins' examples all
> > related to philosophical positions and religion is really nothing more
> > then that.
On Dec 4, 11:34 am, dead kennedy <dead.kenne...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> oi knob jockey.
> im welsh, i am also british.
> i had no choise in either.
That was kind of the point; you have just as much -- or little --
choice in that as a child as you do your religion, which undermines
Dawkins' point about this being unique or particular to religion.
As for currently, you can renounce your British citizenship at any
time and no longer be British (it's not a race, you understand) and
can also reject your Welsh roots and no longer be part of that
nationality. Just like religion.
> On 4 Dec, 13:37, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 8:16 am, Kilmir <Kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4 dec, 12:53, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > > "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> > > > Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> > > > misgiving,
> > > > 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> > > > exception.
> > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> > > > That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> > > > baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> > > > baby is adamant that
> > > > one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> > > > to children.
> > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> > > > child
> > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> > > > on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> > > > child abuse.
> > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> > > > accepted. We
> > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> > > > if
> > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> > > > 'this
> > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> > > > nationality
> > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > > Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> > > > refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> > > > this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> > > > to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> > > > the point abundantly clear.
> > > Actually replacing religion with nationality isn't valid. Nationality
> > > is a passive description of a state.
> > You are thinking of citizenship, not nationality. For example, all
> > Quebecers are Canadian citizens, but are considered in general to have
> > a different nationality than Canadians in general.
> > You are making the common confusion of conflating nation with nation-
> > state. Many nations are also nation-states, but it is not always the
> > case.
> > And even in that case, citizenship generally implies a notion of
> > confidence in the state and loyality to it, which are beliefs and
> > things that people need to be able to form an opinion about, as I
> > stated in some of the things I changed that referred to specific
> > beliefs ascribed to religion.
> > It describes where the person is
> > > registered and requires as much input from the baby in question as
> > > it's eyecolor or gender or who his biological parents are.
> > > Religion is something the person needs to be able to form an opinion
> > > about before you can assign a label to it. Dawkins' examples all
> > > related to philosophical positions and religion is really nothing more
> > > then that.
> On 4 Dec, 11:53, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> > Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> > misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> > exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> > That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> > baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> > baby is adamant that
> > one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> > to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> > child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> > on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> > child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> > accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> > if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> > 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> > nationality
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> > refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> > this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> > to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> > the point abundantly clear.- Hide quoted text -
On Dec 4, 11:38 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > im welsh, i am also british.
> > i had no choise in either.
> That was kind of the point; you have just as much -- or little --
> choice in that as a child as you do your religion, which undermines
> Dawkins' point about this being unique or particular to religion.
> As for currently, you can renounce your British citizenship at any
> time and no longer be British (it's not a race, you understand) and
> can also reject your Welsh roots and no longer be part of that
> nationality. Just like religion.
Seriously, you are contending that having a nationality "forced" upon
you at birth is practically indistinguishable (in consequences) from
having a religion forced upon you at birth?
Is that correct?
________________________________________
I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced
into the public schools of the United States.
-- Thomas Edison
> On Dec 4, 11:38 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > im welsh, i am also british.
> > > i had no choise in either.
> > That was kind of the point; you have just as much -- or little --
> > choice in that as a child as you do your religion, which undermines
> > Dawkins' point about this being unique or particular to religion.
> > As for currently, you can renounce your British citizenship at any
> > time and no longer be British (it's not a race, you understand) and
> > can also reject your Welsh roots and no longer be part of that
> > nationality. Just like religion.
> Seriously, you are contending that having a nationality "forced" upon
> you at birth is practically indistinguishable (in consequences) from
> having a religion forced upon you at birth?
> Is that correct?
Indistinguishable in the ways that Dawkins is after, since nationality
-- remember, that is not in and of itself citizenship -- confers an
assumption of certain beliefs and qualities that you have that you may
not. For examples, think about what it means to be Welsh. Or a
Quebecer. Or Flemish. None of these are citizenships, yet it is
generally assumed that if you are born into that nation you are one.
> On Dec 4, 12:23 am, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2:18 pm, checkers <mkone...@telkomsa.net> wrote:> chx
> > > wow, is this woody or woody's daddy...or is it cut-n-paste?
> > wow, is this checkers or checker's mommy...or is it Christian
> > hypocrisy?
> chx
> wrong mr daddy woody, little woody would respond with 'Christian
> checkers'
> his grammar and spelling is worse than mine and he cannot post long
> posts as the OP. how old is he? he is a one liner that replies with
> that stupid cut-n-paste shit you prepared for him.
> goes like this; 'little woody, if you don't understand what they wrote
> then just post this shit.' am i right, that is spam.
goes like this; 'little chx, if you don't understand what they wrote
then just post this shit.' am i right, that is spam.
> > > On Dec 3, 8:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > > Christians should read this because it clearly prooves that babies are
> > > > Atheists but are hidden because of Christian hypocrisy
> > > > Many Christians are hypocrites.- Hide quoted text -
> On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> misgiving,
> 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> exception.
> We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> baby is adamant that
> one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> to children.
> They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> child
> at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> child abuse.
> I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> accepted. We
> don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> if
> his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> 'this
> baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> nationality
> is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> the point abundantly clear.
Christian Treebeard does not understand that to be of nationality you
only complete condition like born in country or parents in country
BUT to be of religion you have to believe in religion YES?
Ask simple question:
Does baby believe in Jesus? No so stupid to call baby Christian
Does baby born in Qubec? Yes so okay to call baby Qubecer
> On Dec 4, 3:53 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> > Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> > misgiving,
> > 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> > exception.
> > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> > That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> > baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> > baby is adamant that
> > one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> > to children.
> > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> > child
> > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> > on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> > child abuse.
> > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> > accepted. We
> > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> > if
> > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> > 'this
> > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> > nationality
> > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> > refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> > this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> > to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> > the point abundantly clear.
> Christian Treebeard does not understand that to be of nationality you
> only complete condition like born in country or parents in country
> BUT to be of religion you have to believe in religion YES?
So you don't think that any immigrants can ever become citizens?
Don't they all have to take a loyalty oath to do so.
And you clearly do not understand that nationality and citizenship are
not the same thing. Welsh, for example, is a nation without a state
and therefore without citizenship, based around a common set of
cultural practices. Don't you have to believe in and follow those
practices exactly the same as a religion to be truly part of a
nation? Especially since for many a common religion is PART of
nationality?
> Ask simple question:
> Does baby believe in Jesus? No so stupid to call baby Christian
> Does baby born in Qubec? Yes so okay to call baby Qubecer
Quebecer is not citizenship; Quebec is not a federal state.
> On Dec 4, 12:48 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 4, 3:53 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Dec 3, 1:54 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> > > > "But now we come to religion, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her devout
> > > > Catholic parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Catholicism.'
> > > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of misgiving,
> > > > 'Bernadette is a Catholic'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > > is far too young to have developed a theological opinion of her own.
> > > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > > when it comes to religion, society meekly makes a clanging exception.
> > > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > > label tied around her neck. This is a Catholic baby.
> > > > That is a protestant baby. This is a Hindu baby. That is a Muslim
> > > > baby. This baby thinks there are many gods. That baby is adamant that
> > > > there is only one. But it is preposterous that we do this to children.
> > > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a child
> > > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > > cosmos and creation, on life and afterlives, on sexual ethics,
> > > > abortion and euthanasia - is a form of mental child abuse.
> > > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > > charge. Yet infant belief-labels are almost universally accepted. We
> > > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist if
> > > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But, 'this
> > > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where religion
> > > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > > nobody, least of all an atheist, ever talks about an 'atheist child'.
> > > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > "But now we come to nationality, and an extremely odd thing happens.
> > > Where we might have said, 'knowing his father, I expect young Cowdrey
> > > will take up cricket,' we emphatically do not say, 'With her loyal
> > > Canadian parents, I expect young Bernadette will take up Canadianism.'
> > > Instead we say, without a moment's hesitation or a qualm of
> > > misgiving,
> > > 'Bernadette is a Canadian'. We state it as simple fact even when she
> > > is far too young to have developed a patriotic opinion of her own.
> > > In all other spheres, a good school will encourage her to develop her
> > > own tastes and opinions, her own skills, penchants and values. But
> > > when it comes to nationality, society meekly makes a clanging
> > > exception.
> > > We inexplicably accept that, the day she is born, Bernadette has a
> > > label tied around her neck. This is a Canadian baby.
> > > That is an English baby. This is an American baby. That is a Quebecer
> > > baby. This baby thinks that one should be loyal to a monarchy. That
> > > baby is adamant that
> > > one should absolutely not be. But it is preposterous that we do this
> > > to children.
> > > They are too young to know what they think. To slap a label on a
> > > child
> > > at birth - to announce, in advance, as a matter of hereditary
> > > presumption if not determinate certainty, an infant's opinions on the
> > > monarchy, on Constitutional rights, on language and religion,
> > > on the preferred voting and political system - is a form of mental
> > > child abuse.
> > > I do not believe it is possible to mount a decent defence against my
> > > charge. Yet infant nationality-labels are almost universally
> > > accepted. We
> > > don't even think about it. Just in case any lingering doubt remains,
> > > consider the following: This child is a Gramscian Marxist. That child
> > > is a Trotskyite Syndicalist. This third child is a Wet Conservative.
> > > This baby is a Keynesian. That baby is a Monetarist. This baby is an
> > > ornithologist. Not, 'This baby is likely to become an ornithologist
> > > if
> > > his father has anything to do with it.' That would be fine. But,
> > > 'this
> > > baby is an ornithologist'? Unthinkable, isn't it? Yet, where
> > > nationality
> > > is concerned, you don't give it a second glance. Oh, and by the way,
> > > nobody, least of all an Earther, ever talks about an 'Earth child'.
> > > Rightly so. But why the double standard? "
> > > Especially considering that nationality does not actually have to
> > > refer to a country itself, but a presumed set of cultural beliefs --
> > > this is why I listed "Quebecer" as a nationality, since Quebec seems
> > > to be a nation inside the state of Canada -- I think this should make
> > > the point abundantly clear.
> > Christian Treebeard does not understand that to be of nationality you
> > only complete condition like born in country or parents in country
> > BUT to be of religion you have to believe in religion YES?
> So you don't think that any immigrants can ever become citizens?
According to country only.
Also condition of citizen which is known
> Don't they all have to take a loyalty oath to do so.
Depend on country YES?
> And you clearly do not understand that nationality and citizenship are
> not the same thing.
You clearly change subject after you lose
Welsh, for example, is a nation without a state
> and therefore without citizenship, based around a common set of
> cultural practices. Don't you have to believe in and follow those
> practices exactly the same as a religion to be truly part of a
> nation?
Cunning Christian changing nation and citizen to divert
> Especially since for many a common religion is PART of
> nationality?
but nationality not part of religion
> > Ask simple question:
> > Does baby believe in Jesus? No so stupid to call baby Christian
> > Does baby born in Qubec? Yes so okay to call baby Qubecer
> Quebecer is not citizenship; Quebec is not a federal state.
but YOU said Quebecer WHY?
I did not say Qubecer is citizenship.
Christian Treebeard not answer simple question WHY?
On Dec 4, 1:28 pm, Woodbridge <Woodbri...@archaeologist.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 9:53 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > Christian Treebeard does not understand that to be of nationality you
> > > only complete condition like born in country or parents in country
> > > BUT to be of religion you have to believe in religion YES?
> > So you don't think that any immigrants can ever become citizens?
> According to country only.
> Also condition of citizen which is known
I don't know of any country that absolutely refuses to allow anyone
born outside the country to become a citizen.
> > Don't they all have to take a loyalty oath to do so.
> Depend on country YES?
Is there any country that does not insist on an oath of loyalty to
join?
Both of these mean that citizenship is not simply something that you
are born with, and that they imply that you hold certain beliefs ie
loyalty to the country. Which children cannot have been said to have
considered and decided to hold.
> > And you clearly do not understand that nationality and citizenship are
> > not the same thing.
> You clearly change subject after you lose
Nope, I stated in the first post the differences between nation and
state/citizenship.
> Welsh, for example, is a nation without a state> and therefore without citizenship, based around a common set of
> > cultural practices. Don't you have to believe in and follow those
> > practices exactly the same as a religion to be truly part of a
> > nation?
> Cunning Christian changing nation and citizen to divert
They are not the same thing. Neither Wales nor Quebec are currently
countries and cannot confer citizenship on people born in them, yet
are indeed considered nations.
> > Especially since for many a common religion is PART of
> > nationality?
> but nationality not part of religion
Doesn't matter. If we allow nationality to be conferred at birth, we
will have to allow for religions to be conferred in at least those
cases where the nation demands a common religion.
> > > Ask simple question:
> > > Does baby believe in Jesus? No so stupid to call baby Christian
> > > Does baby born in Qubec? Yes so okay to call baby Qubecer
> > Quebecer is not citizenship; Quebec is not a federal state.
> but YOU said Quebecer WHY?
Because Quebec is a nation, but not a country.
> I did not say Qubecer is citizenship.
> Christian Treebeard not answer simple question WHY?
|
