About dawkins letter
GKlein112473633
original thread (actually it would only let me reply to alt.atheism). Anyway,
I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
Gene
My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
Louann Miller
(GKlein112473633) wrote:
>Note - for some reason AOL (which really sucks) will not let me reply to the
>original thread (actually it would only let me reply to alt.atheism). Anyway,
>I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
>assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
>already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
I can't speak for the theist posters, who I appreciate have a
different set of problems to balance. For myself, I'm looking at a
conflict of values "it's morally wrong to teach children something
which in my best personal judgement is a superstition" vs. "if I teach
my child to call him/herself an atheist, the Baptist kids will
probably beat him/her up at school." The latter consideration is not
calculated to produce warm fuzzy feelings about Christianity in the
parental heart, I assure you.
Dawkins doesn't seem to be as strongly against parents raising kids to
favor the parents religion (compare his example "this child will
become an ornithologist if his father has anything to say about it")
as he is against state-funded religious training in schools, which is
not (much) a factor in the US school system. For historical reasons,
the Brits have taken a different approach to the problem of
church-and-state than the US has.
Louann
Noelie S. Alito
news:20011231114908...@mb-bj.aol.com...
> Note - for some reason AOL (which really sucks) will not let me reply to the
> original thread (actually it would only let me reply to alt.atheism). Anyway,
> I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
> assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
> already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
Er, no. They might find it reasonable that their (and everybody
else's) children be referred to as "children of <religion-name>s".
Of course, I don't know if any of the respondents are religionists
who plan to have children.
BTW, I believe macaddicted did not agree with Dawkins' letter.
Noelie, Child of Catholic parents
--
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels
in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell
GKlein112473633
>favor the parents religion (compare his example "this child will
>become an ornithologist if his father has anything to say about it")
>as he is against state-funded religious training in schools, which is
>not (much) a factor in the US school system. For historical reasons,
>the Brits have taken a different approach to the problem of
>church-and-state than the US has.
I read the letter. He calls raising your children into your religion "child
abuse".
RepackRider
>Anyway,
>I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
>assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
>already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
I'm an atheist. My child is well on her way to the same view. I attribute
this to the complete absence of religious talk in our household.
At the same time, her ethical standards seem to be all I could ask for. I
couldn't be any more proud.
~~ Repack Rider ~~
|| Due to overwhelming spam, the address at the ||
|| top of this post is one I only use for newsgroups. ||
|| No e-mail sent to this address is opened. ||
Richard Uhrich
GKlein112473633 wrote:
>
> I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
> assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
> already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
>
> Gene
>
My wife and I took the kids go to church (Episcopal) until their early
teens, but I made sure they knew I was an atheist. Then each made
his/her decisions. One is now a devout Baptist, married into the faith.
The others are little to the theist side of agnosticism and are not
taking the grandkids to church. This disappoints me, because there is so
much of our culture which they don't understand. I'm aghast that they
have to ask _me_ questions, like what Easter is about!
I think young people should be exposed to various religions, not
brainwashed nor left ignorant.
Richard
GKlein112473633
already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
Noelie then answered:
Er, no. They might find it reasonable that their (and everybody else's)
children be referred to as "children of <religion-name>s".
I had used a "not" and you are using a "no"
(well a Er, no) so I am not sure I follow. But bused on your expression
children of <>, I guess you mean yes, they will not inclucate their children
into their religion.
Of course, I don't know if any of the respondents are religionists who plan to
have children.
I am not sure what a religionist is, but since I am raising my children
"Jewishly",
I guess I qualify as one?
>
>BTW, I believe macaddicted did not agree with Dawkins' letter.
I didn't see it. (and he is not in my kill file)
GKlein112473633
>teens, but I made sure they knew I was an atheist. Then each made
>his/her decisions. One is now a devout Baptist, married into the faith.
>The others are little to the theist side of agnosticism and are not
>taking the grandkids to church. This disappoints me, because there is so
>much of our culture which they don't understand. I'm aghast that they
>have to ask _me_ questions, like what Easter is about!
Getting off topic here, but I knew a Rabbi a long time ago who would have
observed that most Jews could answer what Easter was about, but could not list
the first three kings of Israel.
>I think young people should be exposed to various religions, not
>brainwashed nor left ignorant.
Really off topic here, but I am happily brainwashing my kids into our relgion,
and also attempt to let them know of the good and bad parts of other religions.
David Jensen
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in
<20011231114908...@mb-bj.aol.com>:
He was asking the UK government not to fund more religious schools. I
agree with that concept heartily. The UK could learn from the US and let
the religious fund their own schools.
David Jensen
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in
<20011231131550...@mb-ck.aol.com>:
>>Dawkins doesn't seem to be as strongly against parents raising kids to
>>favor the parents religion (compare his example "this child will
>>become an ornithologist if his father has anything to say about it")
>>as he is against state-funded religious training in schools, which is
>>not (much) a factor in the US school system. For historical reasons,
>>the Brits have taken a different approach to the problem of
>>church-and-state than the US has.
>
>I read the letter. He calls raising your children into your religion "child
>abuse".
"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."
It appears to me that he is objecting to society's willingness to define
folks by a religion that they cannot actually hold because they are
incapable of thinking or understanding the religion yet. It is not so
much the teaching the religion, but the presumption that a child born
into a family with religion A must follow that religion is what he is
calling child abuse. Look at his next paragraph:
"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?"
I don't think Dawkins has any respect for religion, but his objections
to state funding of sectarian schools are still valid, whether he thinks
religion is useful or not.
GKlein112473633
>agree with that concept heartily. The UK could learn from the US and let
>the religious fund their own schools.
Read the whole letter again. He characterised rasing your own children in your
own religion as child abuse.
David Jensen
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in
<20011231141255...@mb-cm.aol.com>:
>>My wife and I took the kids go to church (Episcopal) until their early
>>teens, but I made sure they knew I was an atheist. Then each made
>>his/her decisions. One is now a devout Baptist, married into the faith.
>>The others are little to the theist side of agnosticism and are not
>>taking the grandkids to church. This disappoints me, because there is so
>>much of our culture which they don't understand. I'm aghast that they
>>have to ask _me_ questions, like what Easter is about!
>
>Getting off topic here, but I knew a Rabbi a long time ago who would have
>observed that most Jews could answer what Easter was about, but could not list
>the first three kings of Israel.
But Judaism has this mix of culture and religion. There are many people
in the US who refer to themselves as atheistic Jews, but that doesn't
happen with Christians, even the atheists who cheerfully celebrate
Christmas.
>>I think young people should be exposed to various religions, not
>>brainwashed nor left ignorant.
>
>Really off topic here, but I am happily brainwashing my kids into our religion,
>and also attempt to let them know of the good and bad parts of other religions.
And governments accept that.
What Dawkins wants to see is an acceptance of individual choice by
society, not taxpayer funded subsidies of religious schools and
indoctrination. Would you be happy to have the government pick up the
tab for a Hebrew Day School? Would you also want to pay for a Baptist
Elementary, an Islamic Elementary, a Catholic Elementary and a Buddhist
Elementary?
GKlein112473633
I am not addressing the part of the letter that Dawkins writes about state
funding relgious schools. I am in favor of shul/state separation, but I don't
know enough of England to have an opinion.
On the topic that I did raise - that he calls parents child abuses for raising
their kids in their relgion - your defense is hollow. Society doesn't label my
kids Jewish, I label them. Society just agrees with my label. You may need a
village, but parents do most of the good (or bad).
GKlein112473633
>society, not taxpayer funded subsidies of religious schools and
>indoctrination. Would you be happy to have the government pick up the
>tab for a Hebrew Day School? Would you also want to pay for a Baptist
>Elementary, an Islamic Elementary, a Catholic Elementary and a Buddhist
>Elementary?
As I noted in another post, I am not responding to Dawkins views on govt
sponsered religious schools. I am certainly in favor of the separtion of shul
and state. I was objecting to his characterisiation of parents raising their
kids in their relgion as child abuse.
David Jensen
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in
<20011231144212...@mb-cm.aol.com>:
>>I don't think Dawkins has any respect for religion, but his objections
>>to state funding of sectarian schools are still valid, whether he thinks
>>religion is useful or not.
>
>I am not addressing the part of the letter that Dawkins writes about state
>funding relgious schools. I am in favor of shul/state separation, but I don't
>know enough of England to have an opinion.
>
>On the topic that I did raise - that he calls parents child abuses for raising
>their kids in their religion - your defense is hollow. Society doesn't label my
>kids Jewish, I label them. Society just agrees with my label. You may need a
>village, but parents do most of the good (or bad).
I'm not defending his clearly irrelevent aside. I'm not religious, but I
grew up in a very religious household. I survived. I don't object to
parents teaching their religion to their kids. It is one possible way to
teach morality, but as Dawkins examples, it is also a way to teach hate
and maintain sectarian violence in places like Northern Ireland.
GKlein112473633
>parents teaching their religion to their kids. It is one possible way to
>teach morality,
That is not the only reason to teach religion of course.
Dunk
wrote:
>
>My wife and I took the kids go to church (Episcopal) until their early
>teens, but I made sure they knew I was an atheist. Then each made
>his/her decisions. One is now a devout Baptist, married into the faith.
>The others are little to the theist side of agnosticism and are not
>taking the grandkids to church. This disappoints me, because there is so
>much of our culture which they don't understand. I'm aghast that they
>have to ask _me_ questions, like what Easter is about!
>
>I think young people should be exposed to various religions, not
>brainwashed nor left ignorant.
>
>Richard
Do you and some other posters here know about Unitarians?
Dunk
Richard Uhrich
Yes, a little. But after your question, I think I'll look into it a bit
more. I've found posts on t.o by avowed Unitarians generally wize, in my
opinion. However my atheism makes me closer to a Secular Humanist.
Richard
Noelie S. Alito
> I had asked:
> Can I assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
> already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
>
> Noelie then answered:
> Er, no. They might find it reasonable that their (and everybody else's)
> children be referred to as "children of <religion-name>s".
>
> I had used a "not" and you are using a "no"
> (well a Er, no) so I am not sure I follow. But bused on your expression
> children of <>, I guess you mean yes, they will not inclucate their children
> into their religion.
How about:
"No, you cannot assume that all of the posters will not inculcate their
children into their religion. They [just] might find it reasonable ... that
children be referred to as 'children of <region-name>s'."
> > Of course, I don't know if any of the respondents are religionists
> > who plan to have children.
>
> I am not sure what a religionist is, but since I am raising my children
> "Jewishly",
> I guess I qualify as one?
I was trying to find a more general term than "theist" to cover
people whose religious beliefs do not include a god entity. (Perhaps
I could have used 'religious' as a noun.) If you are raising your
children into a Jewish _religion_, that would definitely qualify.
> >BTW, I believe macaddicted did not agree with Dawkins' letter.
>
> I didn't see it. (and he is not in my kill file)
Noelie, child of Catholic parents (and sister of a Catholic,
Buddhists, a Lutheran, an Agnostic; daughter-in-law of
Jews; aunt of New Ager; first cousin of....)
--
Frisbeetarianism, n.: The belief that when you die, your soul goes
up the on roof and gets stuck.
Noelie S. Alito
> >He was asking the UK government not to fund more religious schools. I
> >agree with that concept heartily. The UK could learn from the US and let
> >the religious fund their own schools.
>
> Read the whole letter again. He characterised rasing your own children in your
> own religion as child abuse.
From
<http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,625743,00.html>
The relevant paragraph with the relevant sentence:
| 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.
What you say is true if "raising your own children in your own
religion" is equal to "[slapping] 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". He does declare the latter as "a form of
mental child abuse."
Noelie
--
I can get it for you wholesale:
"http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/148/32.0.html"
Mike Dunford
(GKlein112473633) wrote:
>Note - for some reason AOL (which really sucks) will not let me reply to the
>original thread (actually it would only let me reply to alt.atheism). Anyway,
>I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
>assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
>already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
Well, I don't really have a religion to speak of at the moment. I was
brought up Catholic, but am currently a deist, or possibly just an
agnostic, depending on my mood, the day of the week, phase of the
moon, etc. My wife is not really all that religious either. We are
raising our children Catholic.
--Mike Dunford
Mike Dunford
wrote:
And, if you believe the propa-err- information presented by many of
the creationist groups, your religious belief in evolution makes you a
Secular Humanist by definition.
I went to a Unitarian/Universalist church a couple of times, but never
really got comfortable with it. Having been rasied Catholic, the
flexability of the beliefs there was a bit much for me.
--Mike Dunford
J Forbes
>
> >I don't object to
> >parents teaching their religion to their kids. It is one possible way to
> >teach morality,
>
> That is not the only reason to teach religion of course.
>
Perhaps another reason is that it's pretty much
impossible to *not* teach your religion to your
kids...
Jim
John Wilkins
> Note - for some reason AOL (which really sucks) will not let me reply to the
> original thread (actually it would only let me reply to alt.atheism). Anyway,
> I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
> assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
> already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
I am an agnostic, and my wife a nonpractising but still declaring
Catholic. My 12yo daughter has declared herself a full atheist and my
son seems at age 9 to be something of a deist. They made their own
choices. I always tell them that I have much respect for those who
believe in religious ideas, but that I happen not to.
>
> Gene
>
> My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
> oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
macaddicted
<noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> BTW, I believe macaddicted did not agree with Dawkins' letter.
Darn tootin' I didn't.
--
I'm standing in the middle of the desert waiting for my ship to come in.
Sheryl Crow
macaddicted
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote:
> I didn't see it. (and he is not in my kill file)
Good news I guess....
If someone posted an article, and he was in everyone's kill file, would
it make a difference?
GKlein112473633
>impossible to *not* teach your religion to your
>kids...
>
>Jim
Sadly I disagree. Most parents manage it quite well. (that is to not teach
their religion to their kids)
Mike Dunford
wrote:
>In article <20011231135135...@mb-de.aol.com>,
>gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote:
>
>> I didn't see it. (and he is not in my kill file)
>
>Good news I guess....
>
>If someone posted an article, and he was in everyone's kill file, would
>it make a difference?
That depends on how much noise is made by the Falling Tree (TM).
--Mike
David
> >What Dawkins wants to see is an acceptance of individual choice by
> >society, not taxpayer funded subsidies of religious schools and
> >indoctrination. Would you be happy to have the government pick up the
> >tab for a Hebrew Day School? Would you also want to pay for a Baptist
> >Elementary, an Islamic Elementary, a Catholic Elementary and a Buddhist
> >Elementary?
>
> As I noted in another post, I am not responding to Dawkins views on govt
> sponsered religious schools. I am certainly in favor of the separtion of shul
> and state. I was objecting to his characterisiation of parents raising their
> kids in their relgion as child abuse.
>
> Gene
>
I think you are taking Dawkins analogy too far. He actually said "a
form of mental child abuse".
The relevant section of the letter is:
Quote from Dawkins letter,
"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."
Mental, intellectual, whatever you call it. The way I read Dawkins is
that he means you are forcing your opinions on a child. That is
'mental abuse' if the child happens to disagree with the parent. Even
if your child does agree, which seems quite likely, is it not mental
abuse to direct, or censor, your child with regards to religion?
Surely every parent should encourage a child to think 'outside the
box'.
Which ever way I look at his quote, I cannot interpret him meaning
literal "child abuse".
David
GKlein112473633
>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."
David:
>Which ever way I look at his quote, I cannot interpret him meaning
>literal "child abuse".
Me:
Whatever way I look at your quote, the only way it makes sense is if you
translate
literal as physical.
Mike Dunford
>gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in message news:<20011231145646...@mb-de.aol.com>...
>> >What Dawkins wants to see is an acceptance of individual choice by
>> >society, not taxpayer funded subsidies of religious schools and
>> >indoctrination. Would you be happy to have the government pick up the
>> >tab for a Hebrew Day School? Would you also want to pay for a Baptist
>> >Elementary, an Islamic Elementary, a Catholic Elementary and a Buddhist
>> >Elementary?
>>
>> As I noted in another post, I am not responding to Dawkins views on govt
>> sponsered religious schools. I am certainly in favor of the separtion of shul
>> and state. I was objecting to his characterisiation of parents raising their
>> kids in their relgion as child abuse.
>
>I think you are taking Dawkins analogy too far. He actually said "a
>form of mental child abuse".
>
>The relevant section of the letter is:
>
>Quote from Dawkins letter,
>"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."
>
>Mental, intellectual, whatever you call it. The way I read Dawkins is
>that he means you are forcing your opinions on a child. That is
>'mental abuse' if the child happens to disagree with the parent. Even
>if your child does agree, which seems quite likely, is it not mental
>abuse to direct, or censor, your child with regards to religion?
No, it is not, any more than it is mental abuse to send your
child(ren) to school against their wishes, or for you to insist that
your child(ren) attempt a sport or other extracurricular activity, or
for you to make them come home by 9pm against their wishes.
It is a parent's responsibility to raise their child. IMO, parents who
surrender to the whims of their child are not acting responsibly.
>Surely every parent should encourage a child to think 'outside the
>box'.
Certainly. A parent should also educate their child, and pay enough
attention to their child to know when a child is actually thinking
outside the box, and when they are simply rebelling for the sake of
rebelling.
I was raised Catholic, but am now more a deist then anything else.
Despite my own beliefs, I am bringing my own children up Catholic for
various reasons. My four year old does not like going to church.
However, I still make her. I don't think she has the capacity to make
an informed decision yet. When she is able to provide me with a reason
not to go to church that satisfies me that her decision is the result
of real thought and not whim, I will let her stop. (Or she can stop
when she is 18, whichever comes first.) That might be unfair, but I
don't think it is in any way abusive. OTOH, if I were not to provide
her with a solid foundation from which to make an informed decision, I
think I would be being 'mentally neglectful.'
--Mike Dunford
Tim Tyler
: Anyway, I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter.
Dawkins is an atheist - he's almost bound to see attempts to teach
religion in schools as brainwashing defenseless infants.
I'm inclined to think that religion belongs in schools - and I don't
think it is practical or desirable to try and keep it out.
The problem as I see it is not so much with religious education -
but with the fact that many modern religions are historical legacies -
and are full of incorrect garbage of no benefit to anyone of any age.
--
__________
|im |yler Index of my domains: http://timtyler.org/ t...@iname.com
Michael Altarriba
Mike Dunford wrote:
What exactly is the point of "making" your child attend a church you
don't even believe in? I wouldn't go so far as to call this child abuse,
but I would say it was rather odd. Do you really think she will benefit
from the experience?
Michael Altarriba
children in any particular religion? I'm quite interested in Theravada
Buddhism, and hope to learn more about it. If I do find it worthwhile,
I'll probably end up exposing my children to it, but then again I don't
see this as being a religion - no Deities, no afterlife, no
carrot-and-stick morality.
GKlein112473633 wrote:
> Note - for some reason AOL (which really sucks) will not let me reply to the
> original thread (actually it would only let me reply to alt.atheism). Anyway,
> I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
> assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
> already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
>
Nantko Schanssema
>GKlein112473633 <gklein1...@aol.com> wrote:
>: Anyway, I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter.
>Dawkins is an atheist - he's almost bound to see attempts to teach
>religion in schools as brainwashing defenseless infants.
One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
of brainwashing.
>I'm inclined to think that religion belongs in schools - and I don't
>think it is practical or desirable to try and keep it out.
That highly depends on what is meant with teaching religion. I think
teaching *about* various religions is a useful thing in schools. After
all, there are quite a few religions knocking about, and it's good to
know a thing or two about them, if only to know the enemy.
If, however, only the content of *one* religion are taught or, even
worse, the religious rituals of that religion are part of the
curriculum, IMO nothing good can come of it.
Schools funded from public money ought to be free from religion, other
than general education about religion.
If parents want to send their children to a school with a single
religious background, I think they have a right to do so, but that
they should pay for the priviledge.
regards,
Nantko
--
Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again.
(Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love)
sarah clark
hi richard, the religious education director at my church is a fairly
ardent atheist and she's fairly happy. it's a slight drawback having
someone who holds that belief system in that position because she will
never discuss the actual religous belief systems of the various
religions;
she just presents the traditions and rituals. although as i write i
realize that having been brought up catholic she possibly has no
grounding
in comparative world religion. as a "birthright" unitarian, a humanist
(in
the emerson-thoreau sense) and novice practitioner of buddhism, i
balance
her perspective out a bit & try to get the kids to dig a bit deeper into
world religious thought. additionally, (though my church is not set up
for
this yet) there is a sex ed curriculum, which can be useful as it's not
taught in public school in many areas of the country.
if your grandkids are in houston, we could be their teachers :-) if
not, they can find a local congregation at this website:
http://www.uua.org/CONG/congsrch.html
what you will not find is ideological purity, this causes great
discomfort
to some. the folks that state their congregation is anti-theistic
because
atheists/agnostics are permitted to join/dominate (the american
unitarian
conference) the folks that find the admittance of theists & pagans to be
unreasonable. there are a number of uu's who subscribe to new-age
thought & literally believe in astrology or whatever. but often there
are multiple
congregations so many folks can find one that suits.
--
sarah clark
My experience as a member of the APB (Accounting
Principles Board) taught me many lessons. A major
one was that most of us have a natural tendency and
an incredible talent for processing new facts in
such a way that our prior conclusions remain intact.
-- Charles Horngren
Tim Tyler
: Tim Tyler <t...@iname.com>:
:>Dawkins is an atheist - he's almost bound to see attempts to teach
:>religion in schools as brainwashing defenseless infants.
: One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
: of brainwashing.
IYO.
:>I'm inclined to think that religion belongs in schools - and I don't
:>think it is practical or desirable to try and keep it out.
: That highly depends on what is meant with teaching religion. I think
: teaching *about* various religions is a useful thing in schools. [...]
That's not what's on the menu. The discussion is about "faith" schools.
: If, however, only the content of *one* religion are taught or, even
: worse, the religious rituals of that religion are part of the
: curriculum, IMO nothing good can come of it.
OK, we'll agree to differ, then.
: If parents want to send their children to a school with a single
: religious background, I think they have a right to do so, but that
: they should pay for the priviledge.
Sounds like the parents get a raw deal if they want their child's RE
complete with meditation, hymns and chanting.
I'd be more inclined to provide schools based on the wishes of local
parents - rather than not providing any faith schools at all.
Noelie S. Alito
news:311220011549495940%haris...@starsend.org...
> In article <20011231135135...@mb-de.aol.com>,
> gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote:
>
> > I didn't see it. (and he is not in my kill file)
>
> Good news I guess....
>
> If someone posted an article, and he was in everyone's kill file, would
> it make a difference?
That's what Google groups is for! ("That's for what Google groups is."?)
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' all year long."
Mike Dunford
wrote:
>Mike Dunford wrote:
[snip]
>> I was raised Catholic, but am now more a deist then anything else.
>> Despite my own beliefs, I am bringing my own children up Catholic for
>> various reasons. My four year old does not like going to church.
>> However, I still make her. I don't think she has the capacity to make
>> an informed decision yet. When she is able to provide me with a reason
>> not to go to church that satisfies me that her decision is the result
>> of real thought and not whim, I will let her stop. (Or she can stop
>> when she is 18, whichever comes first.) That might be unfair, but I
>> don't think it is in any way abusive. OTOH, if I were not to provide
>> her with a solid foundation from which to make an informed decision, I
>> think I would be being 'mentally neglectful.'
>>
>> --Mike Dunford
>>
>>
>
>What exactly is the point of "making" your child attend a church you
>don't even believe in? I wouldn't go so far as to call this child abuse,
>but I would say it was rather odd. Do you really think she will benefit
>from the experience?
There are actually several reasons. Perhaps the largest is that both
my wife and I were raised that way, and even though neither of us is
very religious, we both think that the religious education we did
receive was important and valuable, and we want our children to
benefit from it. And yes, I do think that there is a benefit, although
I am unable to put my finger on any specific one. Another reason is
that religion is an important part of my heritage, and one which I
want my children to be able to understand and participate in.
A third reason is that this is the best way I could think of to
provide my children with a knowledge base from which to evaluate
various religions. I reached my own current beliefs from an informed
postion, after a great deal of thought, and despite (or possibly
because of) a great deal of religious education. If I raised my
children without religious education, and they retained beliefs
similar to my own, I'd always be afraid that they just soaked up the
way they were raised, instead of making an educated, informed,
personal decision.
Finally, there is an element of cowardice involved, on two counts.
First of all, I do harbor a bit of reluctance to upset our extended
family. Second, as a military family, we are quite likely to spend one
or more tours in some of the less tolerant areas of the country. I'd
rather not have my children take the heat for being athiests (or
agnostics) until they are old enough to make that choice for
themselves.
It is possible, or even likely that these decisions my wife and I have
made are irrational, and rediculous, but they are what we are the most
comfortable with.
--Mike Dunford
J Forbes
>
> >Perhaps another reason is that it's pretty much
> >impossible to *not* teach your religion to your
> >kids...
> >
> >Jim
>
> Sadly I disagree. Most parents manage it quite well. (that is to not teach
> their religion to their kids)
>
> Gene
Hmmm...perhaps you're right. In which case, you
have nothing to be sad about!
Jim
macaddicted
Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
> of brainwashing.
But no less so than teaching a particular political system. I didn't
learn much about communism or socialism in civics class.
Nantko Schanssema
>Nantko Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>: Tim Tyler <t...@iname.com>:
>:>Dawkins is an atheist - he's almost bound to see attempts to teach
>:>religion in schools as brainwashing defenseless infants.
>: One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
>: of brainwashing.
>IYO.
Imagine, say, a Muslim school, and read my sentence again.
>:>I'm inclined to think that religion belongs in schools - and I don't
>:>think it is practical or desirable to try and keep it out.
>: That highly depends on what is meant with teaching religion. I think
>: teaching *about* various religions is a useful thing in schools. [...]
>That's not what's on the menu. The discussion is about "faith" schools.
Right. Been there... Nine years in schools of the Roman Catholic
persuasion, to be precise.
>: If, however, only the content of *one* religion are taught or, even
>: worse, the religious rituals of that religion are part of the
>: curriculum, IMO nothing good can come of it.
>OK, we'll agree to differ, then.
We might, but I'm not ready for that yet.
Let me assure you: being an atheist pupil in a Catholic school is no
joke. The religious bits of it taught me a thing or two about the
value of religion and thus firmly clinched the case against it, but
then: I was one of the few pupils who actually listened to the
teachers in stead of going through the motions. There were some
interesting discussions, but in general it's been a waste of time and
effort.
>: If parents want to send their children to a school with a single
>: religious background, I think they have a right to do so, but that
>: they should pay for the priviledge.
>Sounds like the parents get a raw deal if they want their child's RE
>complete with meditation, hymns and chanting.
>I'd be more inclined to provide schools based on the wishes of local
>parents - rather than not providing any faith schools at all.
Well, that's more or less the Dutch approach []1. In large towns and
cities that results in some choice, but in small towns, such as the
one I grew up in, there's often just one school, if any, and that's
more often than not a religious one. This may suit the majority of the
parents, but that still means a considerable minority have to put up
with something they don't like. It must be noted, in this respect,
that the majority of the Dutch are non-religious.
[1] In the Netherlands two types of schools exist:
- public schools, without religious background, but quite often with
some general RE.
- schools with a private school board, often, though not necessarily,
with a religious curriculum, be it Christian (in its many variants),
Muslim or otherwise.
Both types have the same standards for quality and general curriculum
and are equally payed for from public funds. There are rather
elaborate rules for establishing and closing schools, but the general
principle is that if enough parents promise to send their children to
a new, let's say for the sake of argument, Satanic school, it must be
established and funded, even when that means the closing of an
existing school.
reards,
Nantko
--
Governments, like diapers, must be changed often, and for the same reason.
Nantko Schanssema
>In article <s5833ug5hfadq0qiu...@4ax.com>, Nantko
>Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
>> of brainwashing.
>But no less so than teaching a particular political system. I didn't
>learn much about communism or socialism in civics class.
Of course.
regards,
Nantko
--
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
(Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
Michael Altarriba
Mike Dunford wrote:
Well, if nothing else, I applaud your honesty, and the directness with
which you answered my question.
My wife and I plan on having children within the next few years. I was
raised Catholic, but I never believed. My wife was not raised with any
strong (or even weak) religious traditions. I expect that we will raise
our children such that they ask questions, think for themselves, and
come to their own conclusions. I don't know where their own convictions
will take them. I will at all times be honest with them, and clearly
state that, while I see no evidence for the existance or action of any
particular Deity or Deities, others hold different beliefs.
Mike
June
> Note - for some reason AOL (which really sucks) will not let me reply to the
> original thread (actually it would only let me reply to alt.atheism). Anyway,
> I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
> assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
> already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
>
> Gene
>
> My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
> oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
I raised my son as an atheist/agnostic. My mother really tried to
convert him to one of the charismatic Christian sects. I never made an
issue of what my mother said to him or when she took him to church. I
was completely honest about my beliefs and encouraged him to learn
whatever he wanted to learn about religion and make up his own mind.
He's basically an agnostic.
He's raising his son as an agnostic. The grandkid is only 5 so there are
no questions from him yet about religion. My daughter-in-law is a
non-practicing Christian (she says she believes in God/Christ, but I
don't think they even have a bible in the house).
The morals and ethics I taught my son were the same that most societies
teach...don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat, etc. (*NOT*
that raising a child was that easy or anything ;-)
He's turned out to be a hardworking, taxpaying, non-criminal, pretty
good guy!
--
My 2¢ ß-)
June
BTW, Happy New Year to everyone!
GKlein112473633
>good guy!
>
Now if only we could figure out a way around the taxpaying part!
Michael G.
wrote:
>"macaddicted" <haris...@starsend.org> wrote in message
Contrary to what you may have heard, ending sentences with
prepositions is grammatically correct. I found this after a few
seconds on Google:
http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
[John Wilkins (?) quoted Churchill on this topic elsewhere.]
However, sentences ending with prepositions tend to be weak, so you
should avoid them when possible. For example, "That is the purpose of
Google groups" is, uh, not much better, but you get the idea...
Michael
Failed School Marm
Noelie S. Alito
> On 1 Jan 2002 12:33:03 -0500, "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"macaddicted" <haris...@starsend.org> wrote in message
> >news:311220011549495940%haris...@starsend.org...
> >> In article <20011231135135...@mb-de.aol.com>,
> >> gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote:
> >>
> >> > I didn't see it. (and he is not in my kill file)
> >>
> >> Good news I guess....
> >>
> >> If someone posted an article, and he was in everyone's kill file, would
> >> it make a difference?
> >
> >That's what Google groups is for! ("That's for what Google groups is."?)
>
> Contrary to what you may have heard, ending sentences with
> prepositions is grammatically correct. I found this after a few
> seconds on Google:
>
> http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
Thank you.
> [John Wilkins (?) quoted Churchill on this topic elsewhere.]
>
> However, sentences ending with prepositions tend to be weak, so you
> should avoid them when possible. For example, "That is the purpose of
> Google groups" is, uh, not much better, but you get the idea...
>
> Michael
>
> Failed School Marm
The lace collar and the hairbun aren't your look anyway.
Noelie
--
"Up is the direction in which I have fucked." --nw
David
> Dawkins:
> >"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."
>
> David:
> >Which ever way I look at his quote, I cannot interpret him meaning
> >literal "child abuse".
>
> Me:
> Whatever way I look at your quote, the only way it makes sense is if you
> translate
> literal as physical.
>
Well to be honest, when I read your post i did think you were implying
physical abuse. I apologise for the confusion.
So, since you did actually mean mental child abuse what exactly would
you call 'real' mental child abuse? Not an extreme case, but a mild
form of mental abuse. Obviously, for you, forcing your opinion on
kids is not a mild form of abuse (I think this is what Dawkins was
saying). So I am interested where you would draw the line?
David
David
> On 31 Dec 2001 20:12:17 -0500, da...@hotmail.com (David) wrote:
> >
> >Mental, intellectual, whatever you call it. The way I read Dawkins is
> >that he means you are forcing your opinions on a child. That is
> >'mental abuse' if the child happens to disagree with the parent. Even
> >if your child does agree, which seems quite likely, is it not mental
> >abuse to direct, or censor, your child with regards to religion?
>
> No, it is not, any more than it is mental abuse to send your
> child(ren) to school against their wishes, or for you to insist that
> your child(ren) attempt a sport or other extracurricular activity, or
> for you to make them come home by 9pm against their wishes.
>
> It is a parent's responsibility to raise their child. IMO, parents who
> surrender to the whims of their child are not acting responsibly.
>
> >Surely every parent should encourage a child to think 'outside the
> >box'.
>
> Certainly. A parent should also educate their child, and pay enough
> attention to their child to know when a child is actually thinking
> outside the box, and when they are simply rebelling for the sake of
> rebelling.
I had no intention of lumping parenting skills into this discussion.
Of course you do not surrender to the whims of your child. I am
thinking about their intellectual development not the house rules.
When a child asks you legitimate questions about anything it is a
parents responsibility to give them a mature answer. Even better,
present them a worldview before they have to ask the questions.
So, for an atheist, there is no harm sending your kids to bible class,
or even better send them to a general religious education class.
Obviously, if you are religious you take them to your chosen church,
but do you deny them the chance to know of other religions?
Of course, until they are 18 you can direct them as you wish but so
often this control extends for their whole lives. How many times have
you seen parents enforce a church wedding on their atheist kids? Even
worse, the Christian child wants to get married to a Buddhist and next
thing you know the parents have boycotted the wedding. This happens
all the time. If this is not abusive, it is certainly traumatic.
David
Noelie S. Alito
With a few exceptions, "bible class" means teaching that the
bible is the teaching (morally, literally, whatever) of a specific god,
and that this god absolutely exists, and monitors your behavior to
determine what happens to you after you die.
It is taught as "this is what the bible means" rather than "this is
what some people believe about the bible".
> or even better send them to a general religious education class.
To teach them _about_ religions (from Thuggee to Buddhisms)
or to teach them moral guidelines derived from a supernatural
basis and motivation?
> Obviously, if you are religious you take them to your chosen church,
> but do you deny them the chance to know of other religions?
Of course they should know of other religions: "This is
not-our-religion X, and it is wrong because X1 and X2.
This is not-our-religion Y, and they wrongly believe Y1.
This is not-our-religion Z, and it is wrong because Z1,
Z2, and Z3...." ;^)
>
> Of course, until they are 18 you can direct them as you wish but so
> often this control extends for their whole lives. How many times have
> you seen parents enforce a church wedding on their atheist kids? Even
> worse, the Christian child wants to get married to a Buddhist and next
> thing you know the parents have boycotted the wedding. This happens
> all the time. If this is not abusive, it is certainly traumatic.
Sometimes the greatest parental trauma is when the child takes
them at their word about being open-minded, only to have them
freak out when the child chooses someone of a different race,
different religion, different political leanings, same sex, different
class, different educational level, or Who Doesn't Want To Have
Their Grandchildren. ("Well, yes, but we didn't mean that you
should *marry* or *be* one of them....")
Noelie
--
"Shiksas are for practice." --what he said on their last date
GKlein112473633
>you seen parents enforce a church wedding on their atheist kids? Even
>worse, the Christian child wants to get married to a Buddhist and next
>thing you know the parents have boycotted the wedding. This happens
>all the time. If this is not abusive, it is certainly traumatic.
>
>David
Dawkins original letter described raising your kids in your religion as mental
child abuse. Boycotting your childrens wedding is abusive and stupid, but is
not equivalent to raising your children.
GKlein112473633
>Well to be honest, when I read your post i did think you were implying
>physical abuse. I apologise for the confusion.
>
>So, since you did actually mean mental child abuse what exactly would
>you call 'real' mental child abuse? Not an extreme case, but a mild
>form of mental abuse. Obviously, for you, forcing your opinion on
>kids is not a mild form of abuse (I think this is what Dawkins was
>saying). So I am interested where you would draw the line?
>
>David
First off - a couple of things. While it was "my" post, I was quoting Dawkins.
He states quite clearly that he believes that raising your kids in your
religion is mental child abuse.
As to where I would draw the line - inculcating your kids into your religion,
(or your love of your country or of the virtue of western civilisation over
other ones) doesn't even come close to the "line". Don't you think we (and
Dawkins) should reserve terms like mental child abuse for stuff like - oh I
don't know - calling your kids stupid every morning, screaming obsenities at
them on a regular basis, etc.
pz
da...@hotmail.com (David) wrote:
Except that they will be awfully bored. My kids have gone to church and
to sunday school with friends, with no complaint from me -- their
general reaction has varied between outright disgust and utter boredom.
> Obviously, if you are religious you take them to your chosen church,
> but do you deny them the chance to know of other religions?
>
> Of course, until they are 18 you can direct them as you wish
Hah. I'd guess you don't have any teenagers in your house. Or worse yet,
teenage girls: they take control 'round about the time they hit 10 or 11.
> but so
> often this control extends for their whole lives. How many times have
> you seen parents enforce a church wedding on their atheist kids?
It happened to me. I just went along with it, of course -- as long as
there was no bizarre bloodletting or embarassing public sacraments, I
could let the in-laws get their jollies. One hint if it ever happens to
anyone else, though: keep quiet about your religious beliefs until it is
all over. We had the problem that since I was up-front about being an
atheist, many of the more ethical (more bigoted? Your choice) ministers
would not oversee the ceremony. We ended up with a bible-thumping
evangelical asshole who, despite agreeing to our request to keep
religion to a minimum, tried to do an on-the-spot conversion (he
literally tried to compel us to 'accept Jesus in our hearts' as we stood
there, before he would go on to the "I now pronounce you..." business).
I was ready to whack him over the head with his bible, and only the
presence of this absolutely stunning woman crushing my hand allowed me
to exercise restraint.
> Even
> worse, the Christian child wants to get married to a Buddhist and next
> thing you know the parents have boycotted the wedding. This happens
> all the time. If this is not abusive, it is certainly traumatic.
--
pz
June
> >He's turned out to be a hardworking, taxpaying, non-criminal, pretty
> >good guy!
> >
>
> Now if only we could figure out a way around the taxpaying part!
>
Well, he'd like to do away with the hardworking (for someone else), but
he enjoys food, shelter & his computer games too much!
June
> In article <s5833ug5hfadq0qiu...@4ax.com>, Nantko
> Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
> > of brainwashing.
>
> But no less so than teaching a particular political system. I didn't
> learn much about communism or socialism in civics class.
But I consider that a failure to educate. I think comparative political
systems should be taught (with a minimum of nationalistic
self-aggrandizement). And not just communism & socialism, but theocracy,
tribalism, monarchy, feudalism, etc.; where & when they were used and
the results.
I also agree that comparative religion could be tremendously positive.
Unfortunately, we can't seem to get bond measures passed to even provide
adequate facilities! (I'm in CA).
Of course, as others have suggested, if we can get it put on the
standardized tests, it would be taught. Hmmmm...how do we get things put
on the tests?
John Wilkins
> "Michael G." <mag...@mailbag.com> wrote in message
news:3c31ed57...@news.charter.net...
> > On 1 Jan 2002 12:33:03 -0500, "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"macaddicted" <haris...@starsend.org> wrote in message
> > >news:311220011549495940%haris...@starsend.org...
> > >> In article <20011231135135...@mb-de.aol.com>,
> > >> gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I didn't see it. (and he is not in my kill file)
> > >>
> > >> Good news I guess....
> > >>
> > >> If someone posted an article, and he was in everyone's kill file, would
> > >> it make a difference?
> > >
> > >That's what Google groups is for! ("That's for what Google groups is."?)
> >
> > Contrary to what you may have heard, ending sentences with
> > prepositions is grammatically correct. I found this after a few
> > seconds on Google:
> >
> > http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/prepositions2.html
>
> Thank you.
>
> > [John Wilkins (?) quoted Churchill on this topic elsewhere.]
I was so clever in that twisting of churchill, I must repeat it here:
The ending of a *sentience* with a *proposition* is an abomination up
with which I shall not put.
Someone got it, anyway :-)
> >
> > However, sentences ending with prepositions tend to be weak, so you
> > should avoid them when possible. For example, "That is the purpose of
> > Google groups" is, uh, not much better, but you get the idea...
>
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > Failed School Marm
>
> The lace collar and the hairbun aren't your look anyway.
>
> Noelie
> --
> "Up is the direction in which I have fucked." --nw
--
John Wilkins
Occasionally making sense for over 46 years
David
> >Obviously, for you [Gene], forcing your opinion on
> >kids is not a mild form of abuse (I think this is what Dawkins was
> >saying). So I am interested where you would draw the line?
> >
> >David
>
> First off - a couple of things. While it was "my" post, I was quoting Dawkins.
> He states quite clearly that he believes that raising your kids in your
> religion is mental child abuse.
Hi Gene, I agree you were quoting Dawkins but your quote, that I
responded to, was not the same as in Dawkins letter.
Your original quote was, "I [Gene] was objecting to his [Dawkins]
characterization of parents raising their kids in their religion as
child abuse.". But, in his letter Dawkins wrote "mental child abuse"
and obviously we agree that this is the case. So our disagreement
appears to be in how we define the term "child abuse" compared to
"mental child abuse".
For me, "child abuse" equates to the worst I can imagine. This
explains why I think your original quote was misrepresenting the
Dawkins letter.
You define mental abuse as:
> Don't you think we (and
> Dawkins) should reserve terms like mental child abuse for stuff like - oh I
> don't know - calling your kids stupid every morning, screaming obsenities at
> them on a regular basis, etc.
I would call that "verbal child abuse", although, this is a murky
definition since it will lead to a mentally disturbed child. So maybe
verbal and mental are one in the same?
I think the use of "mental child abuse", especially in the context of
the Dawkins letter, means to willfully misinform or forcing an opinion
on a child. This does not mean you do it in a rude or verbally
abusive manner. We all know the best indoctrination is achieved with
charisma. So the questions is, does that represent abuse? You think
not, but I think it does represent intellectual abuse which can also
be described as mental abuse.
Given your definition of mental child abuse, I agree with your worry
that Dawkins is way out of line. I think your points are all valid.
But, when I read the Dawkins letter I do not get the same impression
that you do. I suppose we can only guess what Dawkins actually means
by "mental child abuse".
I hope this clarifies my position. David
June
> >
> >Well to be honest, when I read your post i did think you were implying
> >physical abuse. I apologise for the confusion.
> >
> >So, since you did actually mean mental child abuse what exactly would
> >you call 'real' mental child abuse? Not an extreme case, but a mild
> >form of mental abuse. Obviously, for you, forcing your opinion on
> >kids is not a mild form of abuse (I think this is what Dawkins was
> >saying). So I am interested where you would draw the line?
> >
> >David
>
> First off - a couple of things. While it was "my" post, I was quoting
> Dawkins. He states quite clearly that he believes that raising your kids
> in your religion is mental child abuse.
That's not how I interpretted the article. ISTM he was saying that
*other* people who label children as a <insert any religion> child with
the intent or result of segregating them &/or ascribing beliefs (&
responsibility for those beliefs) on social issues to them was mental
child abuse.
Exactly what sentence or sentences do you interpret as Dawkins saying
that 'raising your kids in your religion is mental child abuse'?
>
> As to where I would draw the line - inculcating your kids into your religion,
> (or your love of your country or of the virtue of western civilisation over
> other ones) doesn't even come close to the "line". Don't you think we (and
> Dawkins) should reserve terms like mental child abuse for stuff like - oh I
> don't know - calling your kids stupid every morning, screaming obsenities at
> them on a regular basis, etc.
>
> Gene
>
>
>
> My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
> oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
David
> >ow many times have
> >you seen parents enforce a church wedding on their atheist kids? Even
> >worse, the Christian child wants to get married to a Buddhist and next
> >thing you know the parents have boycotted the wedding. This happens
> >all the time. If this is not abusive, it is certainly traumatic.
> >
> >David
>
> Dawkins original letter described raising your kids in your religion as mental
> child abuse. Boycotting your childrens wedding is abusive and stupid, but is
> not equivalent to raising your children.
>
> Gene
True, but if that's how they behave with their adult children what
kinds of intellectual abuse do they dole out to their under 10's who
question doctrine?
david
Steve Schaffner
> Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > > [John Wilkins (?) quoted Churchill on this topic elsewhere.]
>
> I was so clever in that twisting of churchill, I must repeat it here:
>
> The ending of a *sentience* with a *proposition* is an abomination up
> with which I shall not put.
That does it! Once I could tolerate, but twice is too much. As a
punishment for reposting this, you are required to read the following,
from the description of a term paper on Chaucer's "Troilus and
Criseyde" (available for only $9.85 a page, from www.12000papers.com):
"Medieval Europe in the 1500's was a bastion of Christian
incipience. The times were such that the rewriting of pagan tales to
include the Christian thought of the day were common, even
unconscious."
> > "Up is the direction in which I have fucked." --nw
This one I like.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
John Wilkins
> john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) writes:
>
> > Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > > > [John Wilkins (?) quoted Churchill on this topic elsewhere.]
> >
> > I was so clever in that twisting of churchill, I must repeat it here:
> >
> > The ending of a *sentience* with a *proposition* is an abomination up
> > with which I shall not put.
>
> That does it! Once I could tolerate, but twice is too much. As a
> punishment for reposting this, you are required to read the following,
> from the description of a term paper on Chaucer's "Troilus and
> Criseyde" (available for only $9.85 a page, from www.12000papers.com):
>
> "Medieval Europe in the 1500's was a bastion of Christian
> incipience. The times were such that the rewriting of pagan tales to
> include the Christian thought of the day were common, even
> unconscious."
If anyone was silly enough to plagiarise this and actually pay money for
it, they deserve everything they get (in terms of fails). Waitaminute -
how do *you* have it? [snicker]
>
> > > "Up is the direction in which I have fucked." --nw
>
> This one I like.
I shall use it at every opportunity. Since it well describes situation
normal, I anticipate using it often...
Would that be SNUF'd?
Wade Hines
John Wilkins wrote:
> Steve Schaffner <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote:
> > john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) writes:
> > > Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> > > The ending of a *sentience* with a *proposition* is an abomination up
> > > with which I shall not put.
. . .
> > > > "Up is the direction in which I have fucked." --nw
> >
> > This one I like.
>
> I shall use it at every opportunity. Since it well describes situation
> normal, I anticipate using it often...
>
> Would that be SNUF'd?
I like it too but can only feel sad for those who can identify
with it as to the definite article. May that obscurity not leave
you without direction.
edward cooper
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:a0vhve$n80ub$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de...
Never end a conversation with a proposition.
GKlein112473633
>the Dawkins letter, means to willfully misinform or forcing an opinion
>on a child. This does not mean you do it in a rude or verbally
>abusive manner. We all know the best indoctrination is achieved with
>charisma. So the questions is, does that represent abuse? You think
>not, but I think it does represent intellectual abuse which can also
>be described as mental abuse.
>
>Given your definition of mental child abuse, I agree with your worry
>that Dawkins is way out of line. I think your points are all valid.
>But, when I read the Dawkins letter I do not get the same impression
>that you do. I suppose we can only guess what Dawkins actually means
>by "mental child abuse".
>
>I hope this clarifies my position. David
Well.... In a way, but it obsures mine. If I read you correctly, you are
equating "inculcating ones child in ones religion" (A) with "willfully
misinform or forcing an opinion on a child." (B) . You then go on to imply
that B is a form a mental child abuse.
lets break down (B) into B1 and B2.
B1= willfully misinform a child.
Since I don't agree that inculcating my child into my religion is B1 then I
clearly have a problem with your logic at this stage. Now B2 ="forcing an
opinion on a child". What do you mean here? Does forcing a child to accpet
that sharing is good qualify as B2? What about public schools flying the flag
every morning? Does that qualify?
I really think you need to rethink your B before we go futher. I suspect you
might want to narrow it considerably.
Tim Tyler
:>:>Dawkins is an atheist - he's almost bound to see attempts to teach
:>:>religion in schools as brainwashing defenseless infants.
:>: One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
:>: of brainwashing.
:>IYO.
: Imagine, say, a Muslim school, and read my sentence again.
I would not want to pont fingers at particular systems - but I will
happily grant the point which I think you are trying for - that some
religious cults are great experts in brainwashing.
*Some* religion is bad - but it doesn't follow that *all* religion is bad.
:>:>I'm inclined to think that religion belongs in schools - and I don't
:>:>think it is practical or desirable to try and keep it out.
:>: That highly depends on what is meant with teaching religion. I think
:>: teaching *about* various religions is a useful thing in schools. [...]
:>That's not what's on the menu. The discussion is about "faith" schools.
: Right. Been there... Nine years in schools of the Roman Catholic
: persuasion, to be precise.
: Let me assure you: being an atheist pupil in a Catholic school is no
: joke. [...]
It sounds like comiserations are in order :-|
:>I'd be more inclined to provide schools based on the wishes of local
:>parents - rather than not providing any faith schools at all.
: Well, that's more or less the Dutch approach []1. In large towns and
: cities that results in some choice, but in small towns, such as the
: one I grew up in, there's often just one school, if any, and that's
: more often than not a religious one. This may suit the majority of the
: parents, but that still means a considerable minority have to put up
: with something they don't like. It must be noted, in this respect,
: that the majority of the Dutch are non-religious.
It sounds like they are not doing a perfect job of providing the
right schools if "there's often just one school, if any, and that's
more often than not a religious one" and "the majority of the
Dutch are non-religious".
--
__________
|im |yler Index of my domains: http://timtyler.org/ t...@iname.com
Tim Tyler
: If my wife and I are Atheist, why would we wish to inculcate our
: children in any particular religion? I'm quite interested in Theravada
: Buddhism, and hope to learn more about it. If I do find it worthwhile,
: I'll probably end up exposing my children to it, but then again I don't
: see this as being a religion - no Deities, no afterlife, no
: carrot-and-stick morality.
Some dictionaries seem to thing religion is to do with deities and
theology: e.g. my pocket dictionary has:
"Religion: system of belief in, worship of a supernatural power or god".
This makes Buddhism and Taoism into non-religions - which I see as
a ridiculous classification.
IMO, the term "religion" should address the subject of how best to live,
behave and think. IMO, it should have no logical connection with belief,
supernatural powers or god - since these are not a part of a number of
the world's religious systems.
Buddhism has no god. In Taoism if anything qualifies as a god, it is
nature - and supernatural entities don't really come into the picture.
Nick Keighley
> On 31 Dec 2001 11:49:56 -0500, in talk.origins
> gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in
> <20011231114908...@mb-bj.aol.com>:
> >I am somewhat amazed at the uniform postive response to his letter. Can I
> >assume that all of the posters when they become parents (or if they are
> >already) will not inculcate their children into their religion?
>
> He was asking the UK government not to fund more religious schools. I
> agree with that concept heartily. The UK could learn from the US and let
> the religious fund their own schools.
I read Dawkins' letter and it irritated me. That is because I agree faith
based schools shouldn't be government subsidised. Not least because only
Church of England (protestant) schools are subsidised. One solution would be
subsidise other faith based schools. This seems to be making thinks worse not
better. Hence I agree with Dawkins' conclusion. I object to his argument.
The "mental child abuse" crack was outrageous.
I would agree that in Northern Ireland faith based schools are divisive.
I object to his statement that faith based schools automatically teach hatred
for other religions. I attended a C of E primary school (5-11 years). I did
not leave it with an ingrained hatred of Catholics, Jews or Moslems. Some
Catholic children (ooh! I've used the "<religion> children" phrase! ooh!) did
attend the school.
--
Nick Keighley
Nick: "why doesn't Patrick have to go religious education classses"
Mum: "because he's a Catholic"
Nick: "oh. Can I be a catholic?"
David
> If I read you correctly, you are
> equating "inculcating ones child in ones religion" (A) with "willfully
> misinform or forcing an opinion on a child." (B) . You then go on to imply
> that A is a form a mental child abuse.
For A) I don't imply that people misinform about their own religion
rather they may misinform about other religions or ideas associated
with other religious positions. In the context of the Dawkins letter
this comes across as protestants hate cathloics hate protestants, as
in N. Ireland. Where do they learn this from? The schools.
For B) To turn a free thinking child into a bigot is one way I
interpret the concept of mental abuse.
(As an aside I want to clarify mental abuse, I specfically mean
intellectual abuse. I am sure given the context of "mental child
abuse" in Dawkins letter that this is what he means. Go back and
reread his letter at
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,625743,00.html
A quick internet search describes intellectual abuse as:
Intellectual Abuse occurs whenever a child's thinking is attacked or
ridiculed and when parents present themselves as perfect, in complete
control, and without doubts and uncertainties. When parents rigidly
set forth their beliefs and ideas as absolute truth and are unwilling
to share their doubts or to tolerate children's ideas and perceptions,
those children are intellectually abused. When they are not taught
that having problems is a normal part of life and are not given
problem-solving skills, children suffer in their intellectual
development. Intellectual abuse also occurs when children are not
supported in developing ideas and beliefs that differ from those of
their parents.
from http://www.task.org/facts.htm
the other forms of abuse they discus are physical, emotional,
spiritual and sexual and all come under the umbrella of child abuse.)
Now back to breaking down B (I'm pretty sure you mean A (A1 and A2)
here but I'm happy to go with your nomenclature).
> lets break down (B) into B1 and B2.
> B1= willfully misinform a child.
> Since I don't agree that inculcating my child into my religion is B1 then I
> clearly have a problem with your logic at this stage.
Teaching a child a religion is not intellectual abuse. NOT teaching
about other religions, especially when the child asks or disagrees
with your spiritual position is intellectual abuse.
> Now B2 ="forcing an
> opinion on a child". What do you mean here? Does forcing a child to accpet
> that sharing is good qualify as B2?
Again you are missing the point here. You seem to think I mean do NOT
teach a child religion or religious values. Have I ever said this?
The point of B2 becomes apparent if one refuses to address other
religions, especially when a child inquires. If one then continues to
enforce religous ideals and biases, then this is forcing an opinion on
the child. Dawkins contention is that this would probably happen in a
religious school.
> What about public schools flying the flag
> every morning? Does that qualify?
I suppose it depends if it's a facist school, a communist school or a
democratic school.
David
Derek Stevenson
news:20020102164344...@mb-bd.aol.com...
> >ow many times have
> >you seen parents enforce a church wedding on their atheist kids?
Even
> >worse, the Christian child wants to get married to a Buddhist and
next
> >thing you know the parents have boycotted the wedding. This
happens
> >all the time. If this is not abusive, it is certainly traumatic.
>
> Dawkins original letter described raising your kids in your religion
as mental
> child abuse.
Not, it does not.
It describes the automatic presumption that children currently share
or will come to share the same religious convictions as their parents
as a form of mental child abuse, presumably because this discounts the
capacity of the child to arrive at his or her own position.
Dawkins does *not* "describe raising your kids in your religion as
mental child abuse" -- in fact, he specifically endorses the right of
parents to do so: "For parents to influence their children's opinions
and beliefs is inevitable and proper."
Try reading what the man actually wrote.
GKlein112473633
Dawkins does *not* "describe raising your kids in your religion as mental child
abuse" -- in fact, he specifically endorses the right of parents to do so: "For
parents to influence their children's opinions
and beliefs is inevitable and proper."
Try reading what the man actually wrote.
Gene here:
Sure - in fact I will post it here:
<start dawkins>
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.
<end dawkins>
Its pretty clear - indeed explicit. Maybe you should try reading what he
wrote.
GKlein112473633
mental
child abuse. Most see to want to put a better face on what dawkins actually
said. Maybe because dawkins is some sort of demi-g-d, I don't know. but here
is the words that Dawkins used: If you don't like it don't blame the messenger.
start dawkins quote
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.
end dawkins quote.
It seems quite clear: Raise you child in your religion and that is mental
child abuse.
David Jensen
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in
<20020103163709...@mb-de.aol.com>:
>A number of people have disagree with me for critisising dawkins for his use of
>mental
>child abuse. Most see to want to put a better face on what dawkins actually
>said. Maybe because dawkins is some sort of demi-g-d, I don't know. but here
>is the words that Dawkins used: If you don't like it don't blame the messenger.
>
>start dawkins quote
>
>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.
>
>end dawkins quote.
>
>It seems quite clear: Raise you child in your religion and that is mental
>child abuse.
I wouldn't be surprised if that is how he feels, based on some of his
other antireligious commentary. It's unfortunate that he made this
comment, because it was easy for folks to take offense at, and it was
completely unnecessary, the argument was not advanced by it at all.
Noelie S. Alito
> Derek said:
>
> Dawkins does *not* "describe raising your kids in your religion as mental child
> abuse" -- in fact, he specifically endorses the right of parents to do so: "For
> parents to influence their children's opinions
> and beliefs is inevitable and proper."
>
> Try reading what the man actually wrote.
>
> Gene here:
> Sure - in fact I will post it here:
>
> <start dawkins>
> 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.
> <end dawkins>
>
> Its pretty clear - indeed explicit. Maybe you should try reading what he
> wrote.
>
What Gene means is that raising your kids in your religion is the same
as "[slapping] 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."
Personally, I would not have thought anyone would declare that's
what "raising your kids in your religion" is, but life is full of surprises.
Happy labeling, Gene.
Noelie
--
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, This shall be the law of the
leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:
And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look,
and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper; Then shall
the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds
alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: And the
priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel
over running water --Lev 14:1-5
David
> Derek said:
>
> Dawkins does *not* "describe raising your kids in your religion as mental child
> abuse" -- in fact, he specifically endorses the right of parents to do so: "For
> parents to influence their children's opinions
> and beliefs is inevitable and proper."
>
> Try reading what the man actually wrote.
>
> Gene here:
> Sure - in fact I will post it here:
>
> <start dawkins>
> 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.
> <end dawkins>
>
> Its pretty clear - indeed explicit. Maybe you should try reading what he
> wrote.
>
> Gene
Hi Gene, I have to agree with Derek.
Regarding the Dawkins letter, I really do think you have missed his
point. It seems like you have read one paragraph, and then twisted it
based on your own assumptions. You should reread the whole letter and
reinterpret that paragraph you quote, but in context.
As Noelie points out even alone the paragraph does not say what you
claim it does.
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in message news:<a12q6t$o1hcp$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de>...
> What Gene means is that raising your kids in your religion is the same
> as "[slapping] 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."
>
> Personally, I would not have thought anyone would declare that's
> what "raising your kids in your religion" is, but life is full of surprises.
Your interpretation of the paragraph becomes even more strange when
you look at it in the context of the whole letter. You don't even
address the quote that Derek provides from the Dawkins letter above
"For parents to influence their children's opinions and beliefs is
inevitable and proper."
Below is your summary of what Dawkins is saying is quoted from
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in message news:<20020103163709...@mb-de.aol.com>...
> It seems quite clear: Raise you child in your religion and that is mental
> child abuse.
How can you possibly conclude that Dawkins thinks the above, yet, in
the very same letter he clearly states it is proper for parents to
influence a childs beliefs?
David
PS This has nothing to do with Dawkins status as a deity. It's all
about comprehension or lack of it.
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in message news:<20020103163709...@mb-de.aol.com>..
GKlein112473633
"raising your kids in your religion" is, but life is full of surprises.
Tell me how I raise my children to be Jews without labeling them as Jews.
GKlein112473633
>I wouldn't be surprised if that is how he feels, based on some of his
>other antireligious commentary. It's unfortunate that he made this
>comment, because it was easy for folks to take offense at, and it was
>completely unnecessary, the argument was not advanced by it at all.
I quite agree - the paragraph was completly out of place in the letter.
Steve Schaffner
> Derek said:
>
> Dawkins does *not* "describe raising your kids in your religion as mental child
> abuse" -- in fact, he specifically endorses the right of parents to do so: "For
> parents to influence their children's opinions
> and beliefs is inevitable and proper."
>
> Try reading what the man actually wrote.
>
> Gene here:
> Sure - in fact I will post it here:
>
> <start dawkins>
> 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.
> <end dawkins>
>
> Its pretty clear - indeed explicit. Maybe you should try reading what he
> wrote.
Is English not your native language? Dawkins (who is far from my
favorite writer, incidentally) says nothing in this paragraph about
raising children.
Nantko Schanssema
>Nantko Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>: Tim Tyler <t...@iname.com>:
>:>Nantko Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>:>: Tim Tyler <t...@iname.com>:
>:>:>Dawkins is an atheist - he's almost bound to see attempts to teach
>:>:>religion in schools as brainwashing defenseless infants.
>:>: One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a form
>:>: of brainwashing.
>:>IYO.
>: Imagine, say, a Muslim school, and read my sentence again.
>I would not want to pont fingers at particular systems -
In the first version of my post I used scientology as an example, but
I changed that, mainly because there are good reasons to consider it
a criminal organisation rather than a religion.
>but I will
>happily grant the point which I think you are trying for - that some
>religious cults are great experts in brainwashing.
That is my main point, but what I also had in mind is that the amount
of brainwashing incorporated in various religions is more a matter of
degree than of intent.
>*Some* religion is bad - but it doesn't follow that *all* religion is bad
True. We may draw the border differently, though.
>:>:>I'm inclined to think that religion belongs in schools - and I don't
>:>:>think it is practical or desirable to try and keep it out.
>:>: That highly depends on what is meant with teaching religion. I think
>:>: teaching *about* various religions is a useful thing in schools. [...]
>:>That's not what's on the menu. The discussion is about "faith" schools.
>: Right. Been there... Nine years in schools of the Roman Catholic
>: persuasion, to be precise.
>: Let me assure you: being an atheist pupil in a Catholic school is no
>: joke. [...]
>It sounds like comiserations are in order :-|
There are worse things in life.
>:>I'd be more inclined to provide schools based on the wishes of local
>:>parents - rather than not providing any faith schools at all.
>: Well, that's more or less the Dutch approach []1. In large towns and
>: cities that results in some choice, but in small towns, such as the
>: one I grew up in, there's often just one school, if any, and that's
>: more often than not a religious one. This may suit the majority of the
>: parents, but that still means a considerable minority have to put up
>: with something they don't like. It must be noted, in this respect,
>: that the majority of the Dutch are non-religious.
>It sounds like they are not doing a perfect job of providing the
>right schools if "there's often just one school, if any, and that's
>more often than not a religious one" and "the majority of the
>Dutch are non-religious".
That's what I think. Of course, there is no fair solution for the
problem as long as the amount of money and teachers for schools is
limited, which makes the problem a political one.
regards,
Nantko
--
Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again.
(Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love)
Derek Stevenson
> Personally, I would not have thought anyone would declare that's
what
> "raising your kids in your religion" is, but life is full of
surprises.
>
> Tell me how I raise my children to be Jews without labeling them as
Jews.
Tell me how labeling them as Jews causes them to *be* Jews.
Crossing threads (and gratuitously whacking at what's obviously a raw
nerve for you), this is another bit of evidence that you're a
crypto-creationist: this is a neat little example of the essentialist
fallacy (that the name prescribes the characteristics of the thing) of
which creationists are so fond.
Robin Levett
news:myers-C30B26....@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> In article <7ac69154.02010...@posting.google.com>,
> da...@hotmail.com (David) wrote:
>
> > mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike Dunford) wrote in message
> > news:<3c3121fa.79719218@news-server>...
> > > On 31 Dec 2001 20:12:17 -0500, da...@hotmail.com (David) wrote:
<snip>
> > > Certainly. A parent should also educate their child, and pay
enough
> > > attention to their child to know when a child is actually
thinking
> > > outside the box, and when they are simply rebelling for the sake
of
> > > rebelling.
<snip>
> > Obviously, if you are religious you take them to your chosen
church,
> > but do you deny them the chance to know of other religions?
> >
> > Of course, until they are 18 you can direct them as you wish
>
> Hah. I'd guess you don't have any teenagers in your house. Or worse
yet,
> teenage girls: they take control 'round about the time they hit 10
or 11.
>
Does this mean I've got a 3 year old girl who's 10 years old, or am I
doing something wrong?
--
________________________________________________________________
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Robin Levett
news:8ad2cfb3.02010...@posting.google.com...
I attended a Church of England cathedral school (11-18 years - and
was confirmed there, but that's another story); I think part of the
reason why you didn't leave with an ingrained hatred of Roman
Catholics is firstly that the Church of England is about as close as
you can get to an atheist religion, and secondly that the differences
between the Catholic Church and the Church of England have been
largely labelling rather than doctrinal. Ulster Protestants don't
seem to come from the same tradition. Ask Morgoth's Cat - he'll
either agree or correct me.
Robin Levett
news:aq843uodua56c5630...@4ax.com...
> macaddicted <haris...@starsend.org>:
>
> >In article <s5833ug5hfadq0qiu...@4ax.com>, Nantko
> >Schanssema <nan...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> >> One doesn't have to be an atheist to see teaching religion *is* a
form
> >> of brainwashing.
>
didn't
> >learn much about communism or socialism in civics class.
>
> Of course.
.... one would expect to learn about that in any self-respecting modern
history class. I know I did, having done 20th century history at
O-level yea those 25 years ago.
pz
"Robin Levett" <rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net> wrote:
> "pz" <my...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:myers-C30B26....@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > In article <7ac69154.02010...@posting.google.com>,
> > da...@hotmail.com (David) wrote:
> >
> > > mdun...@hawaii.rr.com (Mike Dunford) wrote in message
> > > news:<3c3121fa.79719218@news-server>...
> > > > On 31 Dec 2001 20:12:17 -0500, da...@hotmail.com (David) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Certainly. A parent should also educate their child, and pay
> > > > enough attention to their child to know when a child is
> > > > actually thinking outside the box, and when they are simply
> > > > rebelling for the sake of rebelling.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Obviously, if you are religious you take them to your chosen
> > > church, but do you deny them the chance to know of other
> > > religions?
> > >
> > > Of course, until they are 18 you can direct them as you wish
> >
> > Hah. I'd guess you don't have any teenagers in your house. Or worse
> > yet, teenage girls: they take control 'round about the time they
> > hit 10 or 11.
> >
>
> Does this mean I've got a 3 year old girl who's 10 years old, or am I
> doing something wrong?
When it comes to raising daughters, I think you can pretty much take it
for granted that you are doing something wrong.
--
pz
Robin Levett
> David said:
> >I wouldn't be surprised if that is how he feels, based on some of
his
> >other antireligious commentary. It's unfortunate that he made this
> >comment, because it was easy for folks to take offense at, and it
was
> >completely unnecessary, the argument was not advanced by it at all.
>
> I quite agree - the paragraph was completly out of place in the
letter.
>
At risk of belabouring the point too much, since many others have made
it before (but you still ahven't accepted it); while Dawkins may fell
that religious indoctrination by parents is mental child abuse
(although I doubt it), it was in context not what he said in the
letter, or even the paragraph you object to. He was referring
specifically to third parties looking at the fact that the parents
were of a given religion, and treating the children as the same
religion - and treatign that as reason to throw (eg) bricks at them.
The brick (and worse) hurling in the Ardoyne exemplified the point he
was making. The whole context, not just within his letter, but of the
continuing correspondence that appeared not just in The Observer but
also The Independent, made that crystal clear.
Mike Dunford
<rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Does this mean I've got a 3 year old girl who's 10 years old, or am I
>doing something wrong?
My daughter is currently 4 going on 16. Which matches what my mother
told me a couple of years ago:
"Remember, a toddler is just a portable teenager."
--Mike Dunford
David
> Personally, I would not have thought anyone would declare that's what
> "raising your kids in your religion" is, but life is full of surprises.
>
> Tell me how I raise my children to be Jews without labeling them as Jews.
>
> Gene
So, you label your kids as jewish. That's OK with Dawkins from my
interpretation of his letter.
Below you admit to disussing other religions so I don't think you are
brainwashing your kids. It seems like a good balance to me.
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in message news:<20011231141255...@mb-cm.aol.com>...
> Really off topic here, but I am happily brainwashing my kids into our relgion,
> and also attempt to let them know of the good and bad parts of other
> religions.
I am happy to agree to disagree. This thread seems to be taking too
much time and I think we both have more interesting topics to discuss.
David
GKlein112473633
Tell me how I raise my children to be Jews without labeling them as Jews.
David said:
So, you label your kids as jewish. That's OK with Dawkins from my
interpretation of his letter.
Oh really? I have labeled them as jewish from birth and made sure they and
everyone else knows that they are jewish.
that is what labeling means. Thats also what Dawkins calls mental child abuse.
But how about answering my question. I will make it more general (so as to
remove personalities) How do you label a child as religion x and not raise them
in (and only in) religion x? Remember exposing them to other religions can
include saying that "we here in religion x don't agree with and don't practice
and don't believe in that other religion"
C. Thompson
>
> >Perhaps another reason is that it's pretty much
> >impossible to *not* teach your religion to your
> >kids...
> >
> >Jim
>
> Sadly I disagree. Most parents manage it quite well. (that is to not teach
> their religion to their kids)
>
> Gene
>
> My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
> oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
Happily, I agree. I have found it quite easy to avoid inculcating my
child with irrational fears of satan and hell, of guilt from
transgressions (s)he never committed, and faith in mysterious beings who
will condemn him/her to an eternity of damnation, should that being not
get a substantial share of her/his cookies.
Far easier than I ever hoped it would be, to be honest.
Chris
--
Remove the obvious spam-gagger when replying please.
Noelie S. Alito
> Personally, I would not have thought anyone would declare that's what
> "raising your kids in your religion" is, but life is full of surprises.
>
> Tell me how I raise my children to be Jews without labeling them as Jews.
Well, to me "Jews" is a problematic example because there is
the distinction between the religious Jew (supernatural aspects of
Judaism) and the cultural Jew (determined by birth, and non-religious
aspects of inherited language, lore, long jokes, dress, music, and so
forth).
So, using a more "generic" label, would you consider your child
_theist_ 1) at conception-birth, 2) at the point where you decided
to raise her to believe in a deity, 3) at the point where she had
the mental capacity to understand the concept of a deity and
embraced it herself, 4) other _______________.
"This baby thinks there are many gods. This baby is adamant
there is only one. ..."
Noelie
--
"We're the Minyon Riders" --Joel's dream, _NE_
C. Thompson
>
> >
> >Well to be honest, when I read your post i did think you were implying
> >physical abuse. I apologise for the confusion.
> >
> >So, since you did actually mean mental child abuse what exactly would
> >you call 'real' mental child abuse? Not an extreme case, but a mild
> >form of mental abuse. Obviously, for you, forcing your opinion on
> >kids is not a mild form of abuse (I think this is what Dawkins was
> >saying). So I am interested where you would draw the line?
> >
> >David
>
> First off - a couple of things. While it was "my" post, I was quoting Dawkins.
> He states quite clearly that he believes that raising your kids in your
> religion is mental child abuse.
No he categorically does not. He says that for society to label a child
as "catholic" or "jewish" or pick your poison, is a form of child
abuse. Go back and read the letter carefully.
GKlein112473633
>as "catholic" or "jewish" or pick your poison, is a form of child
>abuse. Go back and read the letter carefully.
You read the letter carefully. Then tell me how a parent "labels" a child
(without draining all meaning from the word) and doesn't raise him or her in
that label.
GKlein112473633
Well, to me "Jews" is a problematic
example because there is the distinction between the religious Jew
(supernatural aspects of Judaism) and the cultural Jew (determined by birth,
and non-religious
aspects of inherited language, lore, long jokes, dress, music, and so
forth).
A cultural Jew is pretty hard to define. Even "determined by birth" (which
sounds close to labeling by the way) is not agreed on. Lets stick with what
you call "supernatural aspects".
>So, using a more "generic" label, would you consider your child _theist_
No reason for generic, lets keep my kids Jewish. And keep the question that
way too. How do you label a child Jewish without rasing them as such?
1) at conception-birth,
Without getting too technical birth will do fine.
<other choices snipped so as to make the child abuse aspect clear>
Robin Levett
> >No he categorically does not. He says that for society to label a
child
> >as "catholic" or "jewish" or pick your poison, is a form of child
> >abuse. Go back and read the letter carefully.
>
> You read the letter carefully. Then tell me how a parent "labels" a
child
> (without draining all meaning from the word) and doesn't raise him
or her in
> that label.
>
Not "parent", "society"! Read for comprehension.
Robin Levett
> Noelie said:
> Well, to me "Jews" is a problematic
> example because there is the distinction between the religious Jew
> (supernatural aspects of Judaism) and the cultural Jew (determined
by birth,
> and non-religious
> aspects of inherited language, lore, long jokes, dress, music, and
so
> forth).
>
> A cultural Jew is pretty hard to define. Even "determined by birth"
(which
> sounds close to labeling by the way) is not agreed on. Lets stick
with what
> you call "supernatural aspects".
>
>
> >So, using a more "generic" label, would you consider your child
_theist_
>
> No reason for generic, lets keep my kids Jewish. And keep the
question that
> way too. How do you label a child Jewish without rasing them as
such?
>
>
> 1) at conception-birth,
>
> Without getting too technical birth will do fine.
>
> <other choices snipped so as to make the child abuse aspect clear>
>
So, at birth your child was monotheistic? Or rather, clarifying
matters since you persist in your insistence that Dawkins said what he
didn't say, at birth was society justified in believeing that yoru
child was amonotheist, who rejected the ministry of Christ and indeed
Mohammed? If so, on what grounds did your new-born child reject that
ministry?
Noelie S. Alito
> Noelie said:
> Well, to me "Jews" is a problematic
> example because there is the distinction between the religious Jew
> (supernatural aspects of Judaism) and the cultural Jew (determined by birth,
> and non-religious
> aspects of inherited language, lore, long jokes, dress, music, and so
> forth).
>
> A cultural Jew is pretty hard to define. Even "determined by birth" (which
> sounds close to labeling by the way) is not agreed on. Lets stick with what
> you call "supernatural aspects".
>
>
> >So, using a more "generic" label, would you consider your child _theist_
>
> No reason for generic, lets keep my kids Jewish. And keep the question that
> way too. How do you label a child Jewish without rasing them as such?
Why label them at all? Teach them your beliefs, presumably
responsible enough to let them know that others believe
differently.
> 1) at conception-birth,
>
> Without getting too technical birth will do fine.
How can an infant have god-beliefs? (Wait, I think I know one
answer: An infant who will likely be raised solely under the influence
of god-believers has god-beliefs in the same sense that a person
who jumped off the diving board and is plunging down to the water
is wet==>stating it that way just acknowleges its inevitability.)
> <other choices snipped so as to make the child abuse aspect clear>
Noelie (child of Catholic parents, sister of a Catholic,
Buddhists, a Lutheran, an Agnostic; daughter-in-law of
Jews; aunt of New Ager; first cousin of....)
--
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"
--Winston Zeddemore, _Ghostbusters_
C. Thompson
Here is the relevant material:
***BEGIN EXCERPT***
In particular, it is normal and pleasing that parental impact should be
strong. I'm not talking particularly about genes, but about all the
influences that parents inevitably bring. It is to be expected that
cricketing fathers will bowl to their sons - or daughters - on the back
lawn, take them to Lords, and pass on their love of the game. There will
be some tendency for ornithologists to have bird-watching children,
bibliophiles book-loving children. Beliefs and tastes, political biases
and hobbies, these will tend, at least statistically, to pass
longitudinally down generations, and nobody would wish it otherwise.
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.
***END EXCERPT
I reiterate: read it carefully. Dawkins is NOT talking about the
labeling of children by their parents. He is talking about other people
labeling kids as belonging to a particular brand of religion. In fact,
Dawkins maintains (para. 1) that parental influence is strong, and it is
good that that is so. However, look at the second sentence in para 2.
That is not the way a parent would speak, and Dawkins is far too precise
a writer to have written that as a parental comment.
No, Dawkins is not saying that raising your child in your religion is
wrong (although I suspect that privately and off-the-record, he would
admit that). He is saying that society should not immediately brand a
child as belonging to a religion from birth.
GKlein112473633
>responsible enough to let them know that others believe
>differently.
Because I wish to label them. This is the heart of the matter. This is what
Dawkins calls mental child abuse. Lets see if we can make it clear. Dawkins
did and was quite honest about it - even though very few posters here will
admit it.
When you child is born - label him or her as the same religion as you. Teach
him in a manner that he or she grows up in the same belief as you. (It is of
course possible - nay easy - to do this and still make it clear that others
believe differently)
Be aware that not teaching him or her in a manner that they will grow up to
share your beliefs is tantamount to **not labeling** them.
>How can an infant have god-beliefs? (Wait, I think I know one
>answer: An infant who will likely be raised solely under the influence
>of god-believers has god-beliefs in the same sense that a person
>who jumped off the diving board and is plunging down to the water
>is wet==>stating it that way just acknowleges its inevitability.)
Other than a few quibles I would agree.
1. Raise you children from birth instilling in him or her your beliefs. This
child will have a greater probabiltiy of sharing your beliefs than if you
didn't label him or her in this manner.
2. This is what Dawkins calls mental child abuse. (I really wish t.o. posters
shared
Dawkins' honesty if nothing else)
3. Now the hard question - Do YOU think 1 is mental child abuse (just like
Dawkins).
David Jensen
gklein1...@aol.com (GKlein112473633) wrote in
<20020105171859...@mb-mg.aol.com>:
>Noelie said:
>Well, to me "Jews" is a problematic
>example because there is the distinction between the religious Jew
>(supernatural aspects of Judaism) and the cultural Jew (determined by birth,
>and non-religious
>aspects of inherited language, lore, long jokes, dress, music, and so
>forth).
>
>A cultural Jew is pretty hard to define. Even "determined by birth" (which
>sounds close to labeling by the way) is not agreed on. Lets stick with what
>you call "supernatural aspects".
>
>
>>So, using a more "generic" label, would you consider your child _theist_
>
>No reason for generic, lets keep my kids Jewish. And keep the question that
>way too. How do you label a child Jewish without rasing them as such?
>
>
>1) at conception-birth,
>
>Without getting too technical birth will do fine.
Do you consider an atheist to be Jewish if his heritage is Jewish?
Don Cates
(GKlein112473633) wrote:
Having now read the letter, I would have to say that you are mistaken
about what Dawkins meant. Please go back and read it again paying
special attention to the paragraph immediately preceeding the one you
keep quoting.
--
Don Cates.