A word from Mc
Hello. I'm pretty sure none of you know who I am, but I'm one of Wanderer's friend in the face to face life. He's right; his opinions and mine don't match very often. For one, I'm a pretty ardent atheist whereas he has always been involved in at least one religion. The reason why I so Horshackianly asked for guest article privileges is in response to mention of third-party interlopers who would like to make demands upon Wanderer in regards to his kid's religious upbringing. As per Wanderer's request, I am going to make a serious attempt not to offend anyone; however, I expect that you keep in mind before posting about how offended you are that because I assert my opinion does not constitute offensiveness.
Example: Meeting a communist.
- Not offensive: "I do not understand why anyone believes in this system, and I believe that anyone who endorses it is simply dreaming."
- Offensive: "Shut up you stupid Red Stalinloving idiot."
As a byote, Wanderer, don't be offended yourself either. I am planning to make a statement regarding how I believe kids' upbringings should be handled which is different than your plans. I will clarfy later why this is not hypocrisy. But don't think I'm telling you you're wrong, but what I will say will in fact be my opinion.
Anyhow, now that I have posted the disclaimer, as follows is my opinion regarding the aforementioned interlopers.
When someone has a kid, it falls upon that person to make the decisions for his kid. It is a responsibility, and a very important one at that. Any responsibility with the gravitas of forming a mind which will one day plague our planet if not done well (witness rednecks (yes I know that was offensive, but I really hate rednecks) ) must be thoroughly examined before any undertaking of said is done.
What is the responsibility here? Is the responsibility to make sure you raise a Christian? Is the responsibility to raise a Wiccan? No. Is it to raise an atheist? Surprisingly, no. It is none of these. The responsibility is to raise a kid who is capable of examining data and drawing responsible conclusions for themselves. Faith is the exact opposite of this. Faith is believing something because someone told you that and insisted it was true. There is, in my opinion, no difference between faith and gullibility. No one would advocate raising a gullible child.
If you can't raise a kid as a Christian, a Wiccan, a Muslim, or even an Atheist, then what can you do?
Simple. But before I tell you, let's tangentially discuss the relative differences between sex and religion as they affect the world. I promise this is relevant.
Religion: Makes people feel bad about themselves.
Sex: Makes people feel good.
Religion: Accomplishes nothing, in my opinion.
Sex: Good workout, builds bonds, procreation.
Religion: Is used as an impetus for wars, genocides, and holocausts.
Sex: Isn't.
Religion: Tells you how to live your life by force of ultimatum, regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Sex: Doesn't.
There are many more points of contrast, but what I hope to demonstrate is that religion is at least as dangerous as sex, and religion abused is much more dangerous than sex abused. Since society traditionally accepts sex as something that should not be revealed to children, I contend that neither should religion.
This is my suggested approach. Volunteer nothing of religion to your children. Respond to direct questions by expressing that it's not appropriate quite yet but you will be happy to answer their questions when they are older. Monitor their television and movie-watching to avoid exposing them to religious material. Let them come to you as an adolescent with a clean slate and as few preconceptions as possible. Then you can explain in an informative and educational tone about religion, and avoid persuasive connotations.
Do you see that, in the above, if the word religion was switched to the word sex that it would be exactly what a socially-accepted "responsible" adult would do? Do you see that all of the reasons why you do not encourage your children to become sexually active can be applied if you simply switch the word "sexually" to the word "religiously" in this very sentence? I submit that it is recklessly irresponsible to do otherwise.
Why should you insist your child believe what you tell them, verbatim, when the only reason why you believe it is because someone insisted it to them many years ago. And the only reason why THAT person believed it is because someone insisted it to them. And so on. And so on. And so on, in regards to the three major Judeo-Christian religions, through innumerable translations and intentional alterations, back to a desert nomad who had not had proper food or shelter for many months, who rode into town expounding upon what he was told by a piece of flaming shrubbery. The above is not to persuade you against religion, although, parenthetically, if anyone is intersted, Wanderer can put you in touch with me regarding that. I simply mean to demonstrate that for any subject of which it is not traditionally considered blasphemy to doubt, this manner of information passage would never be accepted by anyone, and you would certainly never lead your child to base his life around non-religious information received in this manner. You don't teach your kid that there was an Atlantis. You don't teach your kid that Roswell houses alien craft. You don't teach your kid that the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, the Federal Government, and the tobacco industry conspired to kill Kennedy. Why do you teach them that there is an invisible superbeing who both demands to be praised, acknowledged, and obeyed yet refuses to demonstrate his existence or communicate directly to anyone, or teach them that they can perform sorcery, or teach them that a beggar is such because in a past life he wronged good people? Would not a lot more responsible decision-making occur if the choice of religion or lack thereof took place as an adolescent or at least as an adult?
To insist to another adult that said adult teach any of these things to their kids, through attempted application of pressure or any other means, is in my estimation unconscienable. Though I expound upon my views on the matter, and though I put forth my suggestions for what he do, and, though this may be hard to understand, even though I have stated that I believe it is, to quote, "recklessly irresponsible" to do otherwise, I have in actuaity never instructed him to do anything. Not above, not below, not face-to-face. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask Wanderer if I've ever said anything to him one way or the other about his kid, ever, except the time I tried to make a $100 bet that I could convince her to be a lesbian by the time she was 14 which of course was mostly in jest.
I suppose I'll wrap this up. If anyone has any questions, comments, or feedback of any sort, all of which are appreciated and encouraged, feel free to contact me at Irish84210@aol.com with a subject that indicates what it's about to avoid my spam assumption. Also feel free to leave comments on the boards. No religious fervor-related flames, please. Just assume you said it, and I told you go back to 6th grade and have them re-teach the part about the Scientific Method over and over until you finally get it, and it'll save us a conversation.
I have nothing to preface the standard ending of life, or something like it.
Example: Meeting a communist.
- Not offensive: "I do not understand why anyone believes in this system, and I believe that anyone who endorses it is simply dreaming."
- Offensive: "Shut up you stupid Red Stalinloving idiot."
As a byote, Wanderer, don't be offended yourself either. I am planning to make a statement regarding how I believe kids' upbringings should be handled which is different than your plans. I will clarfy later why this is not hypocrisy. But don't think I'm telling you you're wrong, but what I will say will in fact be my opinion.
Anyhow, now that I have posted the disclaimer, as follows is my opinion regarding the aforementioned interlopers.
When someone has a kid, it falls upon that person to make the decisions for his kid. It is a responsibility, and a very important one at that. Any responsibility with the gravitas of forming a mind which will one day plague our planet if not done well (witness rednecks (yes I know that was offensive, but I really hate rednecks) ) must be thoroughly examined before any undertaking of said is done.
What is the responsibility here? Is the responsibility to make sure you raise a Christian? Is the responsibility to raise a Wiccan? No. Is it to raise an atheist? Surprisingly, no. It is none of these. The responsibility is to raise a kid who is capable of examining data and drawing responsible conclusions for themselves. Faith is the exact opposite of this. Faith is believing something because someone told you that and insisted it was true. There is, in my opinion, no difference between faith and gullibility. No one would advocate raising a gullible child.
If you can't raise a kid as a Christian, a Wiccan, a Muslim, or even an Atheist, then what can you do?
Simple. But before I tell you, let's tangentially discuss the relative differences between sex and religion as they affect the world. I promise this is relevant.
Religion: Makes people feel bad about themselves.
Sex: Makes people feel good.
Religion: Accomplishes nothing, in my opinion.
Sex: Good workout, builds bonds, procreation.
Religion: Is used as an impetus for wars, genocides, and holocausts.
Sex: Isn't.
Religion: Tells you how to live your life by force of ultimatum, regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Sex: Doesn't.
There are many more points of contrast, but what I hope to demonstrate is that religion is at least as dangerous as sex, and religion abused is much more dangerous than sex abused. Since society traditionally accepts sex as something that should not be revealed to children, I contend that neither should religion.
This is my suggested approach. Volunteer nothing of religion to your children. Respond to direct questions by expressing that it's not appropriate quite yet but you will be happy to answer their questions when they are older. Monitor their television and movie-watching to avoid exposing them to religious material. Let them come to you as an adolescent with a clean slate and as few preconceptions as possible. Then you can explain in an informative and educational tone about religion, and avoid persuasive connotations.
Do you see that, in the above, if the word religion was switched to the word sex that it would be exactly what a socially-accepted "responsible" adult would do? Do you see that all of the reasons why you do not encourage your children to become sexually active can be applied if you simply switch the word "sexually" to the word "religiously" in this very sentence? I submit that it is recklessly irresponsible to do otherwise.
Why should you insist your child believe what you tell them, verbatim, when the only reason why you believe it is because someone insisted it to them many years ago. And the only reason why THAT person believed it is because someone insisted it to them. And so on. And so on. And so on, in regards to the three major Judeo-Christian religions, through innumerable translations and intentional alterations, back to a desert nomad who had not had proper food or shelter for many months, who rode into town expounding upon what he was told by a piece of flaming shrubbery. The above is not to persuade you against religion, although, parenthetically, if anyone is intersted, Wanderer can put you in touch with me regarding that. I simply mean to demonstrate that for any subject of which it is not traditionally considered blasphemy to doubt, this manner of information passage would never be accepted by anyone, and you would certainly never lead your child to base his life around non-religious information received in this manner. You don't teach your kid that there was an Atlantis. You don't teach your kid that Roswell houses alien craft. You don't teach your kid that the Soviet Union, Fidel Castro, the Federal Government, and the tobacco industry conspired to kill Kennedy. Why do you teach them that there is an invisible superbeing who both demands to be praised, acknowledged, and obeyed yet refuses to demonstrate his existence or communicate directly to anyone, or teach them that they can perform sorcery, or teach them that a beggar is such because in a past life he wronged good people? Would not a lot more responsible decision-making occur if the choice of religion or lack thereof took place as an adolescent or at least as an adult?
To insist to another adult that said adult teach any of these things to their kids, through attempted application of pressure or any other means, is in my estimation unconscienable. Though I expound upon my views on the matter, and though I put forth my suggestions for what he do, and, though this may be hard to understand, even though I have stated that I believe it is, to quote, "recklessly irresponsible" to do otherwise, I have in actuaity never instructed him to do anything. Not above, not below, not face-to-face. If you don't believe me, feel free to ask Wanderer if I've ever said anything to him one way or the other about his kid, ever, except the time I tried to make a $100 bet that I could convince her to be a lesbian by the time she was 14 which of course was mostly in jest.
I suppose I'll wrap this up. If anyone has any questions, comments, or feedback of any sort, all of which are appreciated and encouraged, feel free to contact me at Irish84210@aol.com with a subject that indicates what it's about to avoid my spam assumption. Also feel free to leave comments on the boards. No religious fervor-related flames, please. Just assume you said it, and I told you go back to 6th grade and have them re-teach the part about the Scientific Method over and over until you finally get it, and it'll save us a conversation.
I have nothing to preface the standard ending of life, or something like it.
posted by Hegemon at 11:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home