Anti-Semitism In France!

[gadgetlady 4]

Yes, Ron. My point was that parents shouldn't really expect carte blanche when it comes to teaching their beliefs to their children. Teaching children to be bigots is counterproductive to civil society. Dawkins' point is that teaching children to believe in a supernatural deity--inculcating them with a belief in a fantasy they know not yet how to challenge--is harmful to both the children and to society.

It's a strong statement, but I can't say I disagree.

Wow. Really? You think Dawkins' beliefs, whatever they may be, trump my beliefs FOR MY OWN CHILDREN??????? Who the hell decides what beliefs to teach them? "Society"? Popular vote? That's really scary.

[gadgetlady 4]

All youse guys complaining about Planned Parenthood PREACHING... just remember the difference between a group supporting people's rights going public with their position, and a pastor standing in front of his obedient congregation, from his pulpit, preaching against abortion as being immoral and a sin and a reason for going to HELL.

Please tell me that you all see the distinction.

I was responding to the question of why ministers aren't allowed to discuss politics from the pulpit, which had the answer of "because they're tax-exempt" -- and I was pointing out that that's not a valid answer, because there are other organizations that are tax-exempt who are allowed to tell people how to vote. So, no, I don't see a distinction. I also don't believe abortion is a right. I believe it's been decriminalized, but I don't think killing other people is a right.

Second point I'd like to make is that the term lobbying has been used and I'm not sure that it is accurate used in this context. I have never seen the Planned Parenthood organization, for instance, LOBBY for abortion.

You're kidding, right? Do you know anything about the history and political activity of Planned Parenthood? Even their own website offers ways to get involved in politics! Their own website boasts an "Advocacy Fund" and "Legislative Agenda"! They are a HUGE LOBBY for abortion, in addition to being tax-exempt and the recipient of government funds.

[gadgetlady 4]

Very interesting. I had this to post:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That was written to pacify a Muslim country so we could enter into a treaty with them. From http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5 (which can be read for more detail if desired):

This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government.

Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation.

Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

. . .

It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 24

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 25

Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.

[gadgetlady 4]

That's a pretty obscure document, concerning the ability to grant passports to visitors from Tripoli. How did they get from the original Constitution to that one small article hidden in that document? Just asking..

LOL! Good question, leatha_g! I'm still catching up on posts from today and hadn't read yours. See my response just above

[Marimaru 7]

It's taken me 3 days to catch up on this post since I last posted, lol.

Regarding the comment about what we should teach our children; I think the children of a home should be brought up on the beliefs of their parents, however, I also believe that those parent should be responsible enough to explain that there are people with other belief systems. My parents might not support certain belief systems, but they certainly wouldn't criticize me for chosing one if I were to take the time to get to know what it was I believed in, if that makes any sense. My fiance's parents are strictly of the Mormon faith, and he doesn't particularly follow it, and his parents don't have anything to say against him for that. My fiance (and myself) both are greatful for our Christian upbringing as we believe that it helped to instill some basic morals into us (not to say that people of other upbringings aren't moral, I hope no one thinks I am saying that).

There are some other things I was going to respond to, but they are pages ago, and kind of moot at this point. Oddly enough, the conversation seemed to get decently pleasant when it turned FROM Religion TO Politics. Fancy that.

Regarding religion, personally, I think that organized religion is part of the problem with religion altogether, although I understand why it exists. If all of the information were available to us, and we all found our OWN way to God or, found that we don't believe in him, or found that we believe in a different God/Gods/Goddesses, people might not argue so much about it... but maybe I'm just crazy. The biggest kicker to me on this entire thread was the arguments between Christians and other Christians.

I'm a little late on this as well, but Gadgetlady, I'll answer your question. I do not take the bible literally, and to be quite honest, I don't know whether I believe that Jesus rose on the 3rd day. For example: I think that God creating everything in 6 days (and resting on the 7th) is a metaphor. I believe that quite possibly 7 "days" could be the time it took for things to evolve. I also believe that believing in God in my heart, and believe that I feel that He(or She, whatever) exists in some form or fashion, is enough for me. Someday, when I die, I'll find out whether I was right or wrong, or, I'll rot in the ground and I'll never know anything. Faith is faith. I don't KNOW anything.

[Alexandra 55]

Wow. Really? You think Dawkins' beliefs, whatever they may be, trump my beliefs FOR MY OWN CHILDREN??????? Who the hell decides what beliefs to teach them? "Society"? Popular vote? That's really scary.

No, I certainly don't think Richard Dawkins' beliefs trump yours. What I was saying is that society has an interest in its children being raised with some semblance of rational thought as a basis for their education. Do you not agree? Let's just start there.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I asked. "If you had neighbors next door to you and the parents that lived there along with their cousins in the house next to them, were holding White Supremacy, Neo-Nazi meetings for young children in their backyard every night, including teaching that Whites should kill Gays, Blacks, Catholics and Jews, do you think it ever comes to a point that society should step in?

How about when they start teaching guerrilla warfare, and arms and legs are broken weekly in the practice?"

IThat's not what Dawkins was talking about. He was talking about whether people should be allowed to teach their children "mainfest falsehoods", which for him is equivalent to teaching their children about God.

But I would like anyone to answer if they think that these children should be taught such hate, just because it is the parents doing the teaching.

Parents do not own their children and if they abuse their children, the children can be removed from their custody. Is there also a limit on how much of a parent's belief system a child can be taught before it becomes so detrimental to the child as to be considered abuse?

[Carlene 12]

Do we also have to send them to

Now that scares the hell out of me....pardon the pun. A five year old who "got saved"? From what? What could a pre-school BABY possibly have done that he needs to be "saved"?

And the whole cammo/army thing...and "Who would lay down their life for Jesus?". Looks more like a training camp for terrorists than a Bible camp in the USA.

Whatever happened to the VBS where you made napkin holders out of popsicle sticks?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Now that scares the hell out of me....pardon the pun. A five year old who "got saved"? From what? What could a pre-school BABY possibly have done that he needs to be "saved"?

And the whole cammo/army thing...and "Who would lay down their life for Jesus?". Looks more like a training camp for terrorists than a Bible camp in the USA.

Whatever happened to the VBS where you made napkin holders out of popsicle sticks?

I posted that to show how Christian Fundamentalists can corrupt just as easily as Muslim Fundamentalists can.

While the leaders of Muslim Fundamentalist terrorists are often well off financially (Osama for example), Muslim Fundamentalist terrorism flourishes in poor areas.

The leaders behind the movement of Christian Fundamentalists are also well off quite often, but they have found a way to bring people into their fold without poverty as an excuse. And then there is the US government hiding behind Christianity when they kill and maim civilians through there pawns; US military personnel.

[lisah25 3]

Some members may be celebrating Ron's departure thinking him the loser in the battles that have taken place during this past week, however, Ron may have won, because his style has brought many of us closer together. I have not seen so much honest conversation, and compassion between the literal Bible Christians, the figurative Bible Christians and the non-Christians since I have been posting here at LBT. Ron's departure may indeed have been a reason to Celebrate, but not for the reason that some had assumed.

Very interesting observation TOM.

[TruBlueSue 0]

TOM, as usual, you speak my mind before I can even formulate a coherent response.

[BJean 16]

gadgetlady: The whole reason I thought that the term "lobbists" was innaccurate is because of the context where it was used. I did not mean to say that Planned Parenthood doesn't lobby Congress. They do not lobby people - just like preachers should not be considered "lobbying" from the pulpit. I may be splitting hairs, but it's the connotation of "Congressional lobbyists" as it relates to the clergy and an organization that offers assistance to people that made me uncomfortable. (BTW, there are some Christians who pay for lobbyists too, against abortion, so Planned Parenthood doesn't have a monopoly in that venue.) But that is another topic for discussion.

[BJean 16]

The direction this discussion has taken about what parents should be allowed to teach their children is really surprising me. Are people actually suggesting that we should intervene one way or other about whether parents should be allowed to teach their children about God and religion (WHATEVER - Wiccan notwithstanding - religion it may be)?

Even if you are seriously concerned about white supremists teaching their children hate, who the heck are you to intervene? Where does your control over other people's freedom to raise their children start and stop? Today you're afraid of white supremists, tomorrow you might have reason to be afraid of fanatical Jesus freaks. The next day you might be afraid of a faction of the Pentecostal Church. The day after that, you may decide that The Christian Church is dangerous, and so on and so on and so on.

You can't legislate morals. You can't tell people what to teach their babies. When they are attending public schools where teaching standards are universal in the U.S. school systems, we as a society get plenty of time to teach children all we need for them to know to enter society. In the meantime, think freedom, folks. Basic American freedom.

[BJean 16]

My son reached a point in his life where he decided to stop going to church. When his wife was pregnant and I asked if they were going to take their children to church, he said that NO, he was going to be open minded and allow his children to make up their own minds about religion and God and Jesus. I asked him how they are supposed to make up their minds if they have no religious education. I also pointed out that he made his own decision about religion and he was raised in the Catholic Church and attended parocial schools. He understood my point.

[Alexandra 55]

The direction this discussion has taken about what parents should be allowed to teach their children is really surprising me. Are people actually suggesting that we should intervene one way or other about whether parents should be allowed to teach their children about God and religion (WHATEVER - Wiccan notwithstanding - religion it may be)?

No one here has advocated such a position. Richard Dawkins did in his recent book, The God Delusion. And though I said that I don't disagree, I definitely don't think we should attempt to govern what parents teach their children in their own homes. Freedom is too precious to me and there's no way to travel down that path without infringing on parental rights.

It's public education I believe should take a strong stance on the scientific approach. Discussions about which imaginary friend is more powerful have no place in any public classroom. And I'd even go so far as to say that educating children in any specific religious tradition (as in parochial school, yeshiva, madrassa) robs them of the opportunity to fully engage their intellectual capabilities as rational human beings. And that's a shame.