Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's just your rather narrow view on things...how other people choose to live their lives or interact with their family is up to them, you may not agree with it but you have no right to demand they change purely to satiate your own personal opinions on the matter.

This point is the main point of the whole thread. It's about parents being in freedom to conduct family life as they deem fit and appropriate to, and to raise their own children as they deem best.

That's all that's being expected from people of differing faith groups. Indeed, it's what is expected from everyone. After all choosing to raise people with secular beliefs is exactly the same as the choice of another family to raise their children with Christian belief and values.

We can argue all day about it being "bad parenting" but in all actuality it isn't really all that different from any other choice about how to conduct family.

I probably have taken liberties with Ickle Magoo's quote, but it is refreshing to see some form of a reasonable take on this rather than the rather unbelievable child abuse, and indoctrination line, which isn't going to do any favours in expressing your beliefs to those who disagree with you.

We can, and we prefer to talk about these things without such sensationalist language.

dvpower

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have a friend who's father kicked the shít out of him when he said he was an atheist and has barely uttered a dozen words to him since (this was over a decade ago).

That sounds like a really fcuked up relationship. I'm sure there are many examples like it that have nothing to do with religion, for example, fathers beating their sons because the found out they were gay. But, yes, fear of a beating might be a good reason to hide your beliefs

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have witnessed the gnashing of teeth and wailing of a mother who's daughter didn't want a church wedding and was threatening to never speak to the girl again unless she wed in the parish church.

That sounds like emotional blackmail pure and simple. I would be inclined to tell my mother where to get off in a case like this. Would it damage the relationship? Perhaps. Who would be responsible for the damage? The mother.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why not? I have friends with elderly parents who have no wish to upset them. They are not rabid atheists, they feel no sense of personal betrayal by going through the motions for the sake of making people they love happy...and that's their prerogative. :cool:

My atheism is deeply important to me and I've made it very clear to my parents that Christianity is unacceptable. If I found out that they were practising Christianity there would be hell to pay; I wouldn't stand for it, it would damage our relationship and they know this. I might even have to dole out a beating. Now whenever I visit them, I see no religious iconography, there is no sign a bible and they don't talk about faith. I can't be sure what they do when I'm not about, but I suppose that's just because faith is a deeply personal kind of thing.
We have a wonderful relationship.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

My atheism is deeply important to me and I've made it very clear to my parents that Christianity is unacceptable. If I found out that they were practising Christianity there would be hell to pay; I wouldn't stand for it, it would damage our relationship and they know this. I might even have to dole out a beating. Now whenever I visit them, I see no religious iconography, there is no sign a bible and they don't talk about faith. I can't be sure what they do when I'm not about, but I suppose that's just because faith is a deeply personal kind of thing.
We have a wonderful relationship.

- Please explain this, I'm assuming you don't actually do this?

Ickle Magoo

Jakkass wrote: »

I probably have taken liberties with Ickle Magoo's quote

You have, of course.

In an ideal world parents wouldn't emotionally blackmail or threaten their kids, or cut them off or send them to laundries, I think there is a lot about religion that encourages and even causes some horrendous parenting and relationship issues. How people choose to deal with that fact of life is up to them, sure, but it's an issue I'd rather didn't exist and something I'm sure we'll see less of as religion loses it's strangle hold on the general populous.

dvpower wrote: »

That sounds like a really fcuked up relationship. I'm sure there are many examples like it that have nothing to do with religion, for example, fathers beating their sons because the found out they were gay. But, yes, fear of a beating might be a good reason to hide your beliefs

Indeed - but many fecked up a relationship exists out there.

dvpower wrote: »

That sounds like emotional blackmail pure and simple. I would be inclined to tell my mother where to get off in a case like this. Would it damage the relationship? Perhaps. Who would be responsible for the damage? The mother.

You might, others wouldn't - that's the point. Some people don't want to fall out with parents or state they are being emotionally blackmailed or damage the relationship regardless of who is responsible, claiming atheism just isn't that important to some people.

dvpower wrote: »

My atheism is deeply important to me and I've made it very clear to my parents that Christianity is unacceptable. If I found out that they were practising Christianity there would be hell to pay; I wouldn't stand for it, it would damage our relationship and they know this. I might even have to dole out a beating. Now whenever I visit them, I see no religious iconography, there is no sign a bible and they don't talk about faith. I can't be sure what they do when I'm not about, but I suppose that's just because faith is a deeply personal kind of thing.
We have a wonderful relationship.

You think dictating to your parents is any more healthy than parents dictating to their kids? I don't see a difference tbh...

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

- Please explain this, I'm assuming you don't actually do this?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You think dictating to your parents is any more healthy than parents dictating to their kids? I don't see a difference tbh...

I was trying to twist a situation that seems reasonably common (well, maybe not the beatings) to make it sound utterly bizarre when turned on its head.

It didn't work out

begood2

I think it is selfish and the child should decide for himself/herself when their older. I don't think we need religion anyway. and I don't think anyone really believes in it when it come down to it. In Ireland anyway. So I ultimately think religion is a waste of time. Morals are thought to the child by their parents and society which has set up guideline of right and wrong for the common good

pinksoir

dvpower wrote: »

I was trying to twist a situation that seems reasonably common (well, maybe not the beatings) to make it sound utterly bizarre when turned on its head.

It didn't work out

Ah, don't worry. I got it.:)

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

This point is the main point of the whole thread. It's about parents being in freedom to conduct family life as they deem fit and appropriate to, and to raise their own children as they deem best.

Nope, its that it is selfish for a parent to teach a child that their religion is the truth as if it were fact.

strobe

dvpower wrote: »

I guess if its just a little white lie then its probably better to say nothing. I wonder how its going to play out, say, when you have kids of your own. To sustain the lie aren't you going to have to bring them along to get baptised and raise them as Christians?

No, obviously. I would view that as unfair and potentially damaging to my kids. That concern would obviously outweigh the risk of creating stress for my parent. Me going to Christmass mass with my father does no harm to anyone and makes him feel better, there is a world of difference between that and lying to my children in order to indoctrinate them into a cult I don't believe in.

Erren Music

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes, yes, we all know your equally emotional and illogical responses to what other people choose to do.

Is religion rubbish?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I wasn't brought up with religion, my parents forced nothing on me and they are not selfishly expecting me to believe anything, what are you wittering on about now?

Don't be so dramatic.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's their choice, though. No-one HAS to declare their faith or lack of, no-one MUST go to church when religious or refuse to cross the thresh-hold if not. It's not absolutely black and white for everyone, I'd imagine the majority are in rather a grey area of having religious family or even dating or marrying religious people - faith isn't something everyone can just wipe out of their life - and nor does everyone want to, for that matter.

Do you believe religion is a force for good, or is it a disgusting mind control system of indoctrination for weak minded people.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's just your rather narrow view on things...how other people choose to live their lives or interact with their family is up to them, you may not agree with it but you have no right to demand they change purely to satiate your own personal opinions on the matter.

A narrow view on things.

Do you believe dawkins and hitchens have a narrow view?


Do you think its OK that [...PERSONAL COMMENTS REMOVED...] will brainwash their kids with lies and bronze age stories, do you think that form of brainwashing is acceptable in 2010.

.

robindch

Erren Music wrote: »

Do you think its OK that [...PERSONAL COMMENTS REMOVED...] will brainwash their kids with lies and bronze age stories [...]

Your next personally-directed unpleasant comment will earn you a one-month ban.

Erren Music

I would like to know what coment you mean. I have seen far worse on this forum.

ColmDawson

Erren Music wrote: »

I would like to know what coment you mean. I have seen far worse on this forum.

You may have seen worse, but haven't you also seen far, far better?

Dades

Erren Music wrote: »

I would like to know what coment you mean.

Your personal comments about other boards users that Robindch removed.

Erren Music wrote: »

I have seen far worse on this forum.

Forgetting for a moment that you say you've seen far worse despite not even knowing what comment was censured - if you have seen something like this - report it.

Take this to PM or let it go NOW.

Erren Music

robindch wrote: »

Your next personally-directed unpleasant comment will earn you a one-month ban.

how was that personal, i have not specifically said any person by name

Dades

Erren Music on another holiday for this, and misc other reasons.

Dades wrote: »

Take this to PM or let it go NOW.

Erren Music wrote: »

how was that personal, i have not specifically said any person by name

Moving on...

robindch

Dang, Dades got in before I did

Erren Music wrote: »

how was that personal, i have not specifically said any person by name

In your original post, you mentioned the names of two posters from another forum in distinctly derogatory tones. Like almost every other forum on boards, that's not permitted here.

During this break, please do take the time to read the forum charter and rules:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

Especially rule (1) and the final post.

thanks

- robin.

Shenshen

Jakkass wrote: »

You make a patent assumption in the OP:

That the parent is even forcing religion to their child, and that children automatically folllow the religion of their parents for the rest of their lives.

As a child, on average in this country in school, you only get introduced to a very small amount of what Christianity entails. For me in primary school it was about the parables of Jesus. You knew a few key stories, but certainly not a deep basis for Christianity. Most of what I know about Christianity now, has come from my reading of the Bible, the internet (including boards.ie), Christian books, and Christian friends I have met. I made a decision to follow Jesus when I was 17.

Rather what one is doing is introducing Christianity, and allowing the child to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to continue it.

Although, I think this isn't about forcing, it's about offering. Hypothetically, if I had children, I would of course want them to know about Jesus, because of what it has come to mean for me, and the greater implications of salvation. I would want my children to know God, and to love Him, and to grow each day in Him as I have.

That's selfish? Give me a break. That's the most compassionate thing I can do for anyone.

While I'm atheist, I do plan to make sure that my child will learn about as many religions are possible.
Choice is not choice if there are no choices, really.

And I think that is where many religious parents go wrong. Not in teaching about their own religion, but in neglecting to teach about other religions, and in some cases going to some length to ensure the child doesn't hear about them.
If you feel your own religion won't withstand comparison with others, I think it might be time to re-think your own stance on it.

JimiTime

Shenshen wrote: »

And I think that is where many religious parents go wrong. Not in teaching about their own religion, but in neglecting to teach about other religions, and in some cases going to some length to ensure the child doesn't hear about them.
If you feel your own religion won't withstand comparison with others, I think it might be time to re-think your own stance on it.

And where some folk who don't have a relationship with Christ go wrong, is in assuming that the believer imparts ones faith to ones child is some kind of academic process.

Education in relation to the multitude of cultures and religions is just that, an education. A good Christian 'lives' his faith, and you can't shield that from your children, nor would I ever wish to. Its not simply about talking to them about stuff.

Shenshen

JimiTime wrote: »

And where some folk who don't have a relationship with Christ go wrong, is in assuming that the believer imparts ones faith to ones child is some kind of academic process.

Education in relation to the multitude of cultures and religions is just that, an education. A good Christian 'lives' his faith, and you can't shield that from your children, nor would I ever wish to. Its not simply about talking to them about stuff.

Perfectly all right, everybody is entitled to that.
However, neglecting to inform your child of other faiths, or actively witholding information about other ways of life and other ideas about god(s) would be neglectful and selfish.

JimiTime

Shenshen wrote: »

Perfectly all right, everybody is entitled to that.

Thankfully.

neglecting to inform your child of other faiths, or actively witholding information about other ways of life and other ideas about god(s) would be neglectful and selfish.

Not necessarily. Some of you don't get the notion of 'motive'. 'If' a parent decided not to tell a child about something, and was motivated by the welfare of the 'schild' then that is the complete opposite of selfish. Of course, you can disagree if its best for the child or not, but you can't accuse them of selfishness.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

And where some folk who don't have a relationship with Christ go wrong, is in assuming that the believer imparts ones faith to ones child is some kind of academic process.

In fairness a lot do, judging by the huge industry grown up around Bibles and Bible guides for children.

I don't think anyone here is objecting to a parent say setting an example for their child by turning the other check when someone does something nasty to them.

The issue gets complicated when the parent explains to the child why they did that.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

In fairness a lot do, judging by the huge industry grown up around Bibles and Bible guides for children.

I don't think anyone here is objecting to a parent say setting an example for their child by turning the other check when someone does something nasty to them.

The issue gets complicated when the parent explains to the child why they did that.

I didn't say that education wasn't 'part' of it. It goes without saying really. Its alot more than just academical though.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I didn't say that education wasn't 'part' of it. It goes without saying really. Its alot more than just academical though.

That is some what irrelevant to the point at hand though. If you didn't educate them about Christianity, but simply set an example of what you think a up standing individual acts, I'm not sure anyone would be that bothered.

The issue not that they are exposed to a Christian simply through interaction, the issue is the direct teaching of Christian doctrine.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is some what irrelevant to the point at hand though. If you didn't educate them about Christianity, but simply set an example of what you think a up standing individual acts, I'm not sure anyone would be that bothered.

Why should anyone should get 'bothered' at me explaining to my child why I just turned the other cheek? Do you realise how incredibly intolerant that sounds?

Imagine you have a child one day. The child asks you why you don't go to Church. So you explain that it is because you don't believe in God. Should I be bothered by that? Of course not, how you raise your child is up to you. Providing you don't starve them, beat them, or teach them to do something horrendous or grossly illegal then it is none of my business.

I have no problem with people choosing not to collect stamps. In fact I'll passionately defend their right not to collect stamps. I do get worried, however, when they attempt to stop me from collecting stamps!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Why should anyone should get 'bothered' at me explaining to my child why I just turned the other cheek? Do you realise how incredibly intolerant that sounds?

Oh no! Not "intolerant" :rolleyes:

Have you read the thread?

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

the issue is the direct teaching of Christian doctrine.

The direct, threat-encased, teaching of christian dogma as true, and the implication that every competing idea is false, and dangerously so.

That's the problem.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh no! Not "intolerant" :rolleyes:

Have you read the thread?

Yes, I've read the thread.

However, since my reference to tolerance appears to be offensive, how about "live and let live"?

Is that more to your liking?

I'm struggling to find wording that won't provoke any more rolling eyes. What word would you like to use that expresses not getting bothered because a Dad says to his kid, "Well, son, since you ask, the reason why I turned the other cheek was because my Christian faith teaches me that is the right thing to do."

Please advise me - there's a whole dictionary full of words out there for you to utilise.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I've read the thread.

However, since my reference to tolerance appears to be offensive, how about "live and let live"?

Is that more to your liking?

I'm struggling to find wording that won't provoke any more rolling eyes. What word would you like to use that expresses not getting bothered because a Dad says to his kid, "Well, son, since you ask, the reason why I turned the other cheek was because my Christian faith teaches me that is the right thing to do."

Please advise me - there's a whole dictionary full of words out there for you to utilise.

Umm, you say you have read the thread but your whole post screams the opposite, given that the rest of us have covered this ground already (twice in fact)

Needless to say I'm reluctant to repeat myself ad nausea, particular with someone who I have my doubts about their genuine interest in discussing this topic.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Umm, you say you have read the thread but your whole post screams the opposite, given that the rest of us have covered this ground already (twice in fact)

Needless to say I'm reluctant to repeat myself ad nausea, particular with someone who I have my doubts about their genuine interest in discussing this topic.

So you say you are bothered at a dad saying to his own child, "Well, son, since you ask, the reason why I turned the other cheek was because my Christian faith teaches me that is the right thing to do."

But if I ask you about why you get bothered then that suggests that I have not a genuine interest in discussing the topic,and merits a bit of eye rolling?

Ok then. I'll leave you to it so.

Sorry for intruding.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So you say you are bothered at a dad saying to his own child, "Well, son, since you ask, the reason why I turned the other cheek was because my Christian faith teaches me that is the right thing to do."

No I'm not, which you would know IF YOU HAD READ THE THREAD :rolleyes:

At least you are nothing if not predictable ... anyway, this would be a Fail

Shenshen

JimiTime wrote: »

Thankfully.


Not necessarily. Some of you don't get the notion of 'motive'. 'If' a parent decided not to tell a child about something, and was motivated by the welfare of the 'schild' then that is the complete opposite of selfish. Of course, you can disagree if its best for the child or not, but you can't accuse them of selfishness.

I'm sorry, I don't think that there is any situation in which withholding information serves the welfare of a child better than providing that information.

It's this kind of logic that leaves children defenseless against sexual predators and the like.

JimiTime

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't think that there is any situation in which withholding information serves the welfare of a child better than providing that information.

Fine, thats your view. It does not deal with the point made though. As I said, you can disagree with what is best for the child and think your wisdom thrumps every other parents if you like. However you can't accuse the parent of 'selfishness' unless you know the motive is selfish.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

No I'm not, which you would know IF YOU HAD READ THE THREAD :rolleyes:

At least you are nothing if not predictable ... anyway, this would be a Fail

Sorry WN, I'm a little confused here. Below is what PDN responded to. I bolded the relevant bit.

In fairness a lot do, judging by the huge industry grown up around Bibles and Bible guides for children.

I don't think anyone here is objecting to a parent say setting an example for their child by turning the other check when someone does something nasty to them.

The issue gets complicated when the parent explains to the child why they did that.


Is PDN not just asking why anyone would be bothered about a parent explaining why they behave certain ways? It seems by your above statement, that you are saying that 'Giving the example is fine, but then explaining the example causes a problem'.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

It seems by your above statement, that you are saying that 'Giving the example is fine, but then explaining the example causes a problem'.

No I'm saying it gets complicated

I was objecting to PDN boiling down me saying it "gets complicated" to a simple sound bite that I'm object to his straw man simply to attack me.

My position has been expressed over a number of posts in this thread and while complicated should be clear if someone has taken the time to read the thread. If anyone has a genuine interest in further clarification I'm happy to do this, but (and call my cynical) I don't think that was PDN's goal here...

owenc

VERY selfish you should be aloud to choose your own beliefs and not be forced into believing what your parents believe, my mother is trying to get me to believe what she believes but i will just join whatever religion i want i don't care if her bitter mother attacks me its my choice!

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

No I'm saying it gets complicated

I was objecting to PDN boiling down me saying it "gets complicated" to a simple sound bite that I'm object to his straw man simply to attack me.

..

Could you explain the complication that could arise in the anecdoe you gave, just to find out at which point you say 'no, you've over stepped the mark'.

MikeC101

PDN wrote: »

So you say you are bothered at a dad saying to his own child, "Well, son, since you ask, the reason why I turned the other cheek was because my Christian faith teaches me that is the right thing to do."

But if I ask you about why you get bothered then that suggests that I have not a genuine interest in discussing the topic,and merits a bit of eye rolling?

Ok then. I'll leave you to it so.

Sorry for intruding.

Quelle surprise!

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

Fine, thats your view. It does not deal with the point made though. As I said, you can disagree with what is best for the child and think your wisdom thrumps every other parents if you like. However you can't accuse the parent of 'selfishness' unless you know the motive is selfish.

Although it pains me to say it I completely agree with what Jimitime says there. If someone does something completely believing it to be in someone elses best interest then the word selfish simply doesn't apply to their actions. They may be wrong, I might disagree with their actions but I can't possibly see how I could call them selfish for doing what they did. It doesn't make any sense to.

Ickle Magoo

strobe wrote: »

Although it pains me to say it I completely agree with what Jimitime says there. If someone does something completely believing it to be in someone elses best interest then the word selfish simply doesn't apply to their actions. They may be wrong, I might disagree with their actions but I can't possibly see how I could call them selfish for doing what they did. It doesn't make any sense to.

I think it depends on what definition of selfishness you are using.

If it's being concerned only with oneself then I don't think the term does apply here - many theists would certainly consider themselves wholly altruistic when it comes to child-rearing but if you take the definition that it's putting ones own desires and interests above those of others then it's a different story - it's universally known that there are many faiths and personal beliefs regarding faith and spirituality - to try to coerce a child into following just one without giving them the option of or encouraging the child to find their own spirituality would certainly fall under the "selfish" umbrella in that instance.

strobe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think it depends on what definition of selfishness you are using.

This one :concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.

I don't doubt that some parents do have selfish motives when coercing a child to follow thier own religion. But I'm also sure that others do not. The reason I singled Jimis post out to agree with is because he made the remark that wether something comes down to being selfish or not is all about the underlying motive and I haven't seen anything said in the thread that refutes that.

Ickle Magoo

strobe wrote: »

This one :concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others.

I don't doubt that some parents do have selfish motives when coercing a child to follow thier own religion. But I'm also sure that others do not. The reason I singled Jimis post out to agree with is because he made the remark that wether something comes down to being selfish or not is all about the underlying motive and I haven't seen anything said in the thread that refutes that.

I'm not convinced. All theists know that not everyone follows their parents religion, that there are multiple religions and beliefs and that as an adult, following a specific branch of spirituality is an entirely personal choice.

To bring up a child without that choice is no different to bringing them up without a varied political education in order that they support a particular political party because it's the one the parent always votes. Theism is intrinsically selfish in many respects - it's very survival depends on being passed on down the generations and so the protectionism it gets from parents imparting very limited spiritual options is one of those. That's not to say theists are themselves selfish people, it's an inherent part of organised religion not to encourage free thinking and individuality regarding theistic issues, dictating a fixed code of behaviour, morality, instilling fear, guilt - even suggesting certain sexual orientations are sinful, etc, etc.

There are many children entirely unthankful for their parents religious interventions and projections, I don't think being ignorant that it is selfish nor being blinkered to selfishness under the guise of "well meaning" actually changes what it fundamentally is.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you explain the complication that could arise in the anecdoe you gave, just to find out at which point you say 'no, you've over stepped the mark'.

Ok, but first to clarify there is no single "mark". That was the central issue I took with PDN's posts, he was straw manning my position into being along the lines of "A Christian did X, I'm outraged" simply so he could rant about how intolerant us atheists are.

How I think a parent should deal with the situation in the anecdote given depends on what their goals are for their child. This is a separate question to how out of line I think they are, which in turn is a seperate question to where I think the term "abuse" starts to apply.

Like I said, complicated.

Children at a young age are basically sponges, egger to sock up information. They view parents as high ranking authority figures (for evolutionary reasons) and thus accept what they say to a large degree.

You can't ignore this (as some seem to want to) when approaching the education of your child. This is true no matter what you are attempting to education your child about, be it religion or history or the best football team.

So say for example a parent is out with their child and for some reason a person starts shouting at the parent. The parent simply walks away, telling the child to come on.

The parent did this because they are a Christian who doesn't believe in engaging in conflict with people. By simply doing this they have demonstrated an example to the child.

Now they decide to explain to the child what just happened. There are a large number of ways they could do this, and which way they choose to do it depends on what the ultimately purpose of the explanation is.

For example they could say "You shouldn't engage in conflict", never mentioning God at all. They could say "I believe that you shouldn't engage in conflict", again never mentioning religion. They could appeal to the authority of God "God says you should not engage in conflict".

How this will effect the child is complicated, and it would be needlessly pedantic to say these set of words are the "correct" way and these sets of words are the "incorrect" way. There is no single "line", where if you say this it is ok and if you say that it isn't. Everything you say to your child has an effect on your child to various degrees, the issue is attempting to understand that in the context of the goals you want for you child.

Erren Music

JimiTime wrote: »

Fine, thats your view. It does not deal with the point made though. As I said, you can disagree with what is best for the child and think your wisdom thrumps every other parents if you like. However you can't accuse the parent of 'selfishness' unless you know the motive is selfish.

Of course the motive is selfish. God will love them more if they feed their kids minds to this insanity

mehfesto

I it's anything like a show I JUST watched on EWTN, I'm totally against it. But I'm cool with the relaxed way it's usually done.

But seriously, a 30minute show of repition - the same phrase AND scenes repeated at least twenty times. Jesus gettig lashed and being forced up he hill, cut to a nun who asks lots of multicultural children a question and then back to the scene you saw two minutes ago. Repeat ad nauseum.

That's just not normal for any child!

JimiTime

Erren Music wrote: »

Of course the motive is selfish. God will love them more if they feed their kids minds to this insanity

TBH, you offer little more than rant, rant, rant. As long as you get to shoot down what you hate, reasoning doesn't matter.

Sandvich

PDN wrote: »

I would say it horrifies them more because it would be an unwarranted Soviet-style intrusion by the State into families, and a denial of a basic human right as recognised by the United Nations.

So; children deserve no rights or protection?

"You can't tell me how to raise my kid!"

I can if you insist of bathing it in the washing machine.

Of course, schools are the big problem, and we can make "unwarranted" Soviet-style intrusion into those.

Erren Music

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, you offer little more than rant, rant, rant. As long as you get to shoot down what you hate, reasoning doesn't matter.

I cannot reason with someone who is brainwashed.

Whatever religion you are you only have a 17% chance of being in the right one (there is no god).

Hows that for odds, and how selfish is it for you to think that yours is the right one and the other 6 billion people are wrong.

Originally Posted by Irlandese


"This is the same faith that believes a cosmic Jew who was his own father by a virgin can enable you to live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from something invisible called your soul that is present because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree." Lovely, I think Steven Spielbarg is the director we want for this one and maybe David Bowie in the lead role??

Erren Music

Sandvich wrote: »

So; children deserve no rights or protection?

"You can't tell me how to raise my kid!"

I can if you insist of bathing it in the washing machine.

Of course, schools are the big problem, and we can make "unwarranted" Soviet-style intrusion into those.

What they really mean is that children have the right to be brainwashed. Christians definitely do not want their kids learning about ALL the other religions because it weakens the hold they have.

Dades

Erren Music wrote: »

I cannot reason with someone who is brainwashed.

Hi Erren Music!

Welcome to the Last Chance Saloon. It appears your recent temp bans haven't really taught you anything about decorum.

Adjust your attitude or begone forever.