Anti-Semitism In France!

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

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.

I asked questions. I never stated any opinion.

I mentioned breaking of limbs while practicing guerrilla warfare, and asked when it becomes child abuse.

There was a court case about 30 years ago that I would like to bring up. The 1975 cars had an interlock system that would not allow the engine to start if the system sensed weight on any of the front seats unless that seat's seatbelt was fastened. A man locked the seat belt behind his 7 year old child (as he also did behind himself) to defeat the government mandated safety system. The car was in an accident and the child was killed when he went through the windshield. The father was charged with criminally negligent homicide and at trial he asked for mercy because he felt that had suffered enough because of the loss of his child.

Should he have been found guilty?

Children have a right to be protected. Sometimes it is difficult to decide when parental rights and the state's responsibility to protect children take precedence. I believe there is a case going up right now, where Jehovah's Witnesses refused to allow blood transfusions for their infants who were just born.

I know that we are fearful of unnecessary government intervention, but I wish the government was there for me when my step father used to hit me in the head with a one pound hammer. My mother wasn't there for me. No one except my pillow protected me when my step father yelled "cry and I will give you something to cry about” (meaning another hit in the head).

Children need protection by their parents and sometimes from their parents.

[Alexandra 55]

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.

I was raised in a family with no religious tradition. I was interested to discover what my parents went to such lengths to avoid--we never spoke about religion in my home--so I embarked on a course of self-study. Learning about religion is different than being brought up in one. The first lets you observe objectively and explore alternatives; the second teaches you one frame of reference at the expense of all others.

[green 6]

I was raised in a family with no religious tradition. I was interested to discover what my parents went to such lengths to avoid--we never spoke about religion in my home--so I embarked on a course of self-study. Learning about religion is different than being brought up in one. The first lets you observe objectively and explore alternatives; the second teaches you one frame of reference at the expense of all others.

Yah, we had no religious tradition in my family, either, although my parents did have us baptised and my mother would try to go to the local Episcopalian church every Sunday. I don't think her heart was in it, though, for she would be leaving the rest of her family sitting around the Breakfast table still in their pajamas chatting about this and that.

My father was born Jewish but was an atheist. The reason my mother made some efforts was because this was during the 1950s and society back then required that all individuals had a religion. On every form you had to fill out, including job applications, there it was: religion. We were baptised in the Anglican (Episcopalian) church as it was was considered to be always in good taste!

We lived in a big city and my father was self-employed. He could get away with having no church affiliation. My mother did, however, have to occasionally haul her brats off to church with her. I was the oldest and so I got church duty more often than my little brothers.

Later, when I was 10, I was sent off to boarding school. This was run by Anglo-Catholic nuns and I briefly became very devout.

[BJean 16]

Thanks for the feedback!

Alexandra: We seem to totally agree in your first post. You did a very good job of explaining it. My only disagreement is that a healthy knowledge of religion does not have to result in an irrational loss of intellect. (Although an unhealthy brainwashing certainly can!)

In your second post, I think it is commendable that you were able to have the self-discipline to ferret out the answers as well as the questions. Not all people are willing to do that much work. Most everyone will do some digging, but unless they are very interested in the topic, it can be fairly limited without someone helping them with sources, etc. (I may be speaking from the dark ages, before the computer age and the wealth of information that is at our childrens' fingertips today.)

I am not advocating that everyone should give their children a religious education via anything that is beyond what they believe themselves. And it sounds to me that your parents' approach worked very well for you.

The one reason that I would like for my grandchildren to have some religious foundation is not because of my own beliefs or non-beliefs. I wouldn't begin to dictate where or by whom they receive the lessons. But I do think that when kids are small, it is good for them to learn the value of being a good person. The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule that I had to study, memorize and recite in front of the congregation when I was twelve, was an endoctrination in being a good person. I disagree with the concept of being good because if you aren't YOU ARE GOING TO HELL. And I do not agree with the concept of incurring God's wrath if you do not worship him and I disagree with the concept that the Bible is a literal work, that God himself wrote. In fact, it sorta makes me crazy, as you may have noticed earlier. Not all churches are so steeped in lore that they are exclusionary of other beliefs or even other churches.

As long as parents instill a basic reason in their offspring, for being a good person and being a good and decent member of society, I am happy. I just think a lot of young parents today who have been so completely turned off by organized religion (the Catholic Church in my childrens' case, Southern Baptist in my DIL's), have caused them to think that they should WITHHOLD ANY religious education from their children. I believe just as strongly that science and evolution should be taught to my grandchildren. Hopefully, they will acquire a healthy knowledge of both and make all of their own decisions about both. Just as you have.

[BJean 16]

TOM: So THAT'S why your head is so bumpy. I often wondered.

As for the arsehole who killed his own son by breaking the law, I think he should be punished for breaking the law. If we aren't going to enforce laws, why have them? I have pity for the man, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he broke the law.

I agree that children should be protected from mean parents. Can we also protect them from stupid parents? When does it start, TOM? In the crib? Should we have daily or nightly visits to ensure that all parents are not abusing their children? What will we call this new police force? Will they carry weapons just in case some kooky parent has a weapon at home?

Yeah, yeah, I know. That's not what you meant. But how far exactly do you want society to go in protecting children? I guess for some people it would start when the sperm wiggles its way into the egg. Or when the dad thinks about the sperm wiggling its way toward the egg. We better be sure that the mothers maternal equipment is environmentally receptive too.

About the Jehovahs Witness folks who won't transfuse their child... it seems like abuse, doesn't it? What are you going to do with the Christian Scientists who don't take their children to the doctor and get them innoculations? Want to deport them or incarcerate them until they change their religious beliefs? What if they promise not to withhold medical treatment? Should we still do something about them?

I hope you don't think I'm being silly. Well I guess I am a little, but if you think my questions are extreme, I guess you'd be right. But these are things that many people in this world would not think are going too far.

[BJean 16]

See there Alexandra, even Green overcame her modest exposure to religion. heh, heh, heh.

[Alexandra 55]

Thanks for the feedback!

Alexandra: We seem to totally agree in your first post. You did a very good job of explaining it. My only disagreement is that a healthy knowledge of religion does not have to result in an irrational loss of intellect. (Although an unhealthy brainwashing certainly can!)

I know it sounded that way, but I don't believe that a knowledge of religion results in a loss of intellect. But the two--rational, intellectual pursuit and observation as compared to an doctrinaire instruction in a particular religion--are incompatible. The place in the mind that is occupied by faith and adherence to a religious doctrine cannot be used to expand one's understanding of the world by reason. Basically, to the extent that a person is religious, he cannot--by definition--be rational.

Should we study religion, the traditions, history, and influence thereof? Absolutely, and it's an indispensable part of any well-rounded education. But teaching our children that ONE religion is correct to the exclusion of all others sets up a narrow view of the world based on a mythology that not all of us share. It does no child any favors in terms of preparing them to live in today's world as a fully rational human being, and in many arenas can be a handicap.

The one reason that I would like for my grandchildren to have some religious foundation is not because of my own beliefs or non-beliefs. I wouldn't begin to dictate where or by whom they receive the lessons. But I do think that when kids are small, it is good for them to learn the value of being a good person. The Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule that I had to study, memorize and recite in front of the congregation when I was twelve, was an endoctrination in being a good person. I disagree with the concept of being good because if you aren't YOU ARE GOING TO HELL....

As long as parents instill a basic reason in their offspring, for being a good person and being a good and decent member of society, I am happy. I just think a lot of young parents today who have been so completely turned off by organized religion (the Catholic Church in my childrens' case, Southern Baptist in my DIL's), have caused them to think that they should WITHHOLD ANY religious education from their children. I believe just as strongly that science and evolution should be taught to my grandchildren. Hopefully, they will acquire a healthy knowledge of both and make all of their own decisions about both. Just as you have.

But withholding all religious instruction from children in no way means they are not being given adequate instruction in being good, responsible citizens. Teaching children how to live an ethical life and how to be good people does not require parents to force-feed the Ten Commandments, the Eight-Fold Path, or any other system's set of parables and behavior prescriptions. The moral code humanity shares basically boils down to "respect others' boundaries, of person, property, and action." It spans all religions and embraces those without any religious framework. Now, if only everyone could observe it and not think of their religion as an excuse to toss that rule out the window, we'd all be a lot better off.

[BJean 16]

Alexandra: You win.

[Carlene 12]

The place in the mind that is occupied by faith and adherence to a religious doctrine cannot be used to expand one's understanding of the world by reason. Basically, to the extent that a person is religious, he cannot--by definition--be rational.

If I am irrational by virtue of my religion, so be it. I know this is next to impossible for non-believers to comprehend, but I truly did not choose God....God chose me. Another irrational idea.....I know. It's something that has to happen to you before you can understand it - kind of like love.

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

Yes, Planned Parenthood lobbies. Yes, pro-life groups lobby. Yes, the mustard industy lobbies. I was addressing the question that was asked as to why ministers couldn't talk about politics from the pulpit. The answer given was that they're tax exempt, and my point was that there are other organizations that are tax-exempt that tell people how to vote every day.

[gadgetlady 4]

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.

I homeschool my kids, and their intellectual capabilities as rational human beings are fully engaged. My kids can reason better in grammer school than most publicly-educated high schoolers.

[gadgetlady 4]

I know that we are fearful of unnecessary government intervention, but I wish the government was there for me when my step father used to hit me in the head with a one pound hammer. My mother wasn't there for me. No one except my pillow protected me when my step father yelled "cry and I will give you something to cry about” (meaning another hit in the head).

:think That makes me so sad. I am sorry you didn't have anyone there to protect you.

Children need protection by their parents and sometimes from their parents.

This is true. In cases of physical danger. But teaching your children about God doesn't place them in physical danger.

[gadgetlady 4]

But the two--rational, intellectual pursuit and observation as compared to an doctrinaire instruction in a particular religion--are incompatible. The place in the mind that is occupied by faith and adherence to a religious doctrine cannot be used to expand one's understanding of the world by reason. Basically, to the extent that a person is religious, he cannot--by definition--be rational.

:omg: That is an incredible statement. Human history is full of rational people who were also devoutly religious. Some of the greatest logical minds the world has ever seen were devout followers of their faith. Aquinas, Newton, Pasteur, George Washington AND George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Pascal, Mendel, T.S. Eliot, Chaucer, C.S. Lewis, Bach, Handel, I could go on for ages. I'm utterly speechless at this claim.

[Alexandra 55]

:omg: That is an incredible statement. Human history is full of rational people who were also devoutly religious. Some of the greatest logical minds the world has ever seen were devout followers of their faith. Aquinas, Newton, Pasteur, George Washington AND George Washington Carver, Copernicus, Pascal, Mendel, T.S. Eliot, Chaucer, C.S. Lewis, Bach, Handel, I could go on for ages. I'm utterly speechless at this claim.

Gadgetlady, I'm not saying one cannot be, in turns, both rational and religious. But they cannot be both at the same time. One must take either a rational or religious view of something. The important qualifer in my statement is to the extent. However, this explains why I don't believe any ordained minister is qualified to hold public office. Either he or she is a good ordained minister -- that is, his/her highest obligation is to his deity -- OR he or she will be a good public servant, whose highest obligation is to serve the public. In someone like GWB, we've seen the folly of electing someone who openly disdains the will of the people in favor of the will of a higher power. His faith has overridden his reason (if he ever had any to begin with).

I know you think there is such a thing as "creation science" and that that completely undermines my statement. But by its very nature, creation science posits some sort of supernatural creator, and that is not a rational assumption or claim. It is a "well, there's no other explanation that satisfies me, so I'll just assume someone designed nature" claim. That is not rational. There is no evidence FOR a creator, no evidence FOR intelligent design. There is just evidence that nature makes sense, has patterns, and works in concert, and there are other explanations for that. Explanations that do stand up to testing. That's reason, not faith, in action.

Nothing can be BOTH.

[green 6]

Gadgetlady, I'm not saying one cannot be, in turns, both rational and religious. But they cannot be both at the same time. One must take either a rational or religious view of something. The important qualifer in my statement is to the extent. However, this explains why I don't believe any ordained minister is qualified to hold public office. Either he or she is a good ordained minister -- that is, his/her highest obligation is to his deity -- OR he or she will be a good public servant, whose highest obligation is to serve the public. In someone like GWB, we've seen the folly of electing someone who openly disdains the will of the people in favor of the will of a higher power. His faith has overridden his reason (if he ever had any to begin with).

I know you think there is such a thing as "creation science" and that that completely undermines my statement. But by its very nature, creation science posits some sort of supernatural creator, and that is not a rational assumption or claim. It is a "well, there's no other explanation that satisfies me, so I'll just assume someone designed nature" claim. That is not rational. There is no evidence FOR a creator, no evidence FOR intelligent design. There is just evidence that nature makes sense, has patterns, and works in concert, and there are other explanations for that. Explanations that do stand up to testing. That's reason, not faith, in action.

Nothing can be BOTH.

I think that the loaded words which you have used are rational and intelligent. Careless use of these two words is bound to attract hostility and, well, bad karma.

I am an atheist and am a fan of your view, Alexandra. Nevertheless, I would be cautious about employing such words as intelligent and rational in the same sentence. The Intelligent Design/Creationist gang have developped a rational explanation for their view of the world and how it was made. One might recognise that these cats are certainly rational. As to whether this view is intelligent is a whole other kettle of fish and one that is being debated on a number of threads on this site.