And the decision is usually that the kid should join in because it is a safe assumption that the kid’s parents are ok with it. Why wouldn’t that be the reasonable assumption?
If you’re against religious teaching - what is your kid doing there? Did the child who brought them kidnap them? If, somehow, your child is in my classroom against your will, I’m not the person you should be angry at.
And what would you have had Baker do? (Or me in the same situation). I’ve got an hour and a half to fill. Most of it involves doing something that has at least vaguely religious overtones, because I’ve got 40 kids in the room whose parents have put them there for exactly that purpose. My co-leaders and I are there for that reason. The overwhelming majority of the activities in the room are religious in nature as we’re in a church Sunday School room. (As I said in the earlier post. This isn’t a surprise. We’re not hiding what we’re doing. I could understand the upset if we were pretending to be non-religious and sprung it on the kids and parents unexpectedly. I would be extraordinarily pissed if someone advertised “story hour” and it turned out that the story was “The Fountainhead”). Baker’s solution (minimal and innocuous participation) seems to be the best choice at that point.
Maybe it amuse you. But you’ll understand our mindset only when you’ll actually realize that it’s not rethoric. We really perceive the christian god, Odin and fairies in the same way. Tales. Just tales. And when you’ll undertand that we really feel the same about being told (or having a child being told) : “Jesus died for your sins” that you’d feel being told seriously “don’t forget to make offerings to the trolls”.
Most believers are accustomed to their beliefs being perceived as somehow special. Not in the same league as now extinct beliefs. But we perceive it as being exactly identical to the religion of ancient Greece, for instance. For the most part, they don’t really get it. Trying to put yourself in our shoes by replacing the christian belief system by something you really, really don’t believe in is the only way to understand whence we’re coming from.
And what do you mean by “evangelical”? I don’t hand out leaflets in the streets, nor do I hold atheist sunday classes…
Apparently, to you, not giving a special status to christianism, equating it to other arbitrary beliefs (you know, people really do or did believe in these things too, despite them not being part of a respected and current religion) is being “evangelical”.
Of course, it works both ways. You’d call “evangelical” anybody who would not take seriously some former belief nobody has anymore or some fringe belief. Hmm…no, of course you wouldn’t. Or else, you’d have no issue with me comparing chrstiannism with these other beliefs because you would find them equally respectable.
You’ve an issue with this because you think that some beliefs are special, are better than others, are inherently more respectable, and can’t be compared without offense with the others. And not giving the required consideration and respect for these special, highly respectable beliefs, daring to equate them with other undeserving beliefs makes one “evangelical”.
In case you didn’t notice, I was responding to a poster stating that he couldn’t understand why one would be so strongly opposed to having kids attending sunday classes. I explained why. That’s all.
As for non-believers not having a problem with sending their kids to sunday classes, I read the thread, so I had noticed it, thank you.
I don’t mind kids being “exposed to ideas I dissaprove”. I mind them being taught crap every week. Once again, what’s the percentage of christian people who would choose to send their children to “muslim friday shcool” instead of sunday school every week? How many would send them to a weekly astrology course?
In what way is it different?
If I find the idea to be “repugnant”? You bet!
But repugnant or not, having someone teaching every week to a kid, as a truth, their random mythology is ideed indoctrination. What wouldn’t be indocrination, for instance, would be to told them about christianism one week, zoroastrism the next week, the norse mythology the next, etc… And never presenting any of them as “the truth”. I don’t remember sunday school to be even remotely close to this.
Contrarily to me who forbid them from doing so and picket sunday schools I assume?
I don’t think that, currently, the default stance is “If a strange kid walks in and begin participating in whatever you’re doing, you don’t need to even wonder who they are and what they’re doing here”
Basically telling the kid : “I’m sorry but you can’t stay with us unless your parents tell us you can”… Same think s/he should do if the strange kid was joining a group s/he supervise engaged in, say, collecting mushrooms in the nearby wood.
I’d exclude from that people living in small communities where “it takes a village to raise a kid” is still the norm. Which is becoming rare nowadays.
Thank you for the high-school level lesson in logic. Does your text have cute little pictures? I’m not sure exactly what your argument is this time around. First you were talking about the effect of faith in the world at large, then switched to the US. You claimed that Sunday school must not be harmful, because the people in the US are not bad. I would argue that a country that elects someone who condones torture does not have a good moral compass. I can not, nor do I claim to, prove that going to sunday school is the cause, but I have shown an example that refutes your assertion that things are OK in the USA.
Maybe it’s a perspective thing (and very based on my past experiences). But kicking a kid out of the room, emphasizing his difference from the group, and making him sit in the hall conspicuously alone for 90 minutes seems very much worse to me.
To take it back to Voyager’s analogy (adding that it’s a community where children can legally watch porn). I’m not going to blame the projectionist if my kids end up in a XXX movie theater. If I object to porn, it is my job to keep them away. If I don’t, that’s my fault. If some other family brings them - I have an issue with that family, not the filmmakers.
I do not believe as they do but that doesn’t make it “impossible.” I also fail to see the harm that simply being religious causes. Sure, some people use religion for evil. Some people use alcohol for evil - this doesn’t mean alcohol is evil. There are millions of people who are happy to have their faith and not bug you about it nor decide to take over the world. I, for one, respect their views and let them believe as they wish. No skin off my ass. I’ll leave the conspiracy theories and insults to you guys.
It’s so cute when you are just as bad as they are…
Maybe I am more confident in my ability to raise my children than than you are. Maybe I give my kid - and myself, for that matter - more credit than you do, apparently.
No, but you do rail against anything religious, no matter how benign it may be, just like the fundies you despise. I repeat: Just like them.
No, I call “evangelical” anyone who feels the need to evangelize their beliefs, no matter what they are. The shoe fits whether you’re preaching for or against God.
No, you’re wrong. I have an issue because I consider nearly all beliefs valid. My problem is when anyone claims that they have eternal truths that all should follow or be damned to hell or… whatever it is that evangelical atheists seem to think happens with anyone who feels differently than they do. I find the arrogance of the true believer to be no better or worse than that of the unbeliever when both people tell me that they have a corner on “Truth” (big T).
:rolleyes: Nice semantic game there. If it’s really “crap,” then your kids should be able to see that for themselves thanks to your fine parenting skills.
Anyway, the reasons you feel compelled to keep your children away from anything vaguely religious are paranoia for the most part. By all means, you have a right to be paranoid and demonize anyone who has any faith whatsoever as morons who believe in fairy tales. Just don’t expect me to not see it as any different from, as someone else here said better than I, the fundie who freaks out when junior hears a Madonna song on the radio.
If you paid attention in High School, such remedial education would be unnecessary. Her’s a clue by four: If the only arguments you have are fallacies, then you don’t have an argument.
Cool, an ad hominem! You really should stay out of this forum if the best you can do is throw fallacies around. It’s called “Great Debates,” you see, and a logical fallacy makes for a pretty crappy debate.
Do you need remedial English lessons as well?
I am talking about faith in general. I fail to see why it matters either way.
So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Another fallacy. I thougth atheists were supposed to be oh so logical. Maybe some are but you sure aren’t since you can’t seem to tell the difference between a fallacy and a hole in the ground without a map.
Then there’s no real reason to bring it up then.
Nice poll that in no way changes what I said. The poll spoke to 1,000 Americans whereas I am taking the actual teachings of the religions themself of which there are many, many millions of adherants across the planet.
Like you, I believe that the religious right has far too much power in this country and I think that a lot of people in this country are stupid. The difference between you and I is that I don’t think that the kid attending Sunday School is part of the problem, and I also do not see how whatever that kid learns there will make him or her part of the problem. There are much bigger fish to fry.
Violations of physical laws are impossible, such as omniscience. Some things are not matters of opinion; they are matters of facts and logic.
Religion is irrational and destructive; anything that aids or abets it is bad. When those “harmless” people, for example, send in money that is used to hide or defend child molestors, or supress condom use in Africa - they are responsible for plenty of suffering.
Really ? Who have I killed ? Who have I imprisoned, or tortured or invaded or enslaved ? You think that is cute ? I really find it telling how religious people like you equate merely disapproving of religion as morally the equivalent of mass murder.
The supernatural can neither be proved, nor disproved. That is logical. Something that cannot be disproved is not “impossible.” I may choose to believe that it didn’t happen but I usually don’t much care if someone else decides differently. There are a ton of very nice people who read their Horroscopes, believe that ghosts haunt things, feel that at least some UFOs are aliens dropping by, and/or believe in God. I don’t agree with them but I don’t begrudge them their belief.
Christ, you’re bitter and blinded by it too. Religion also has helped many people come to a better understanding of themself, develop ethical and moral compasses, helped people become better people. That is not to say that people need religion to accomplish those things, nor that the people that did use religion to positively change their lives couldn’t have done it without it. But for those who use religion to better themselves and the way they treat others, more power to them.
Wow, what useless paranoid hyperbole. I guess I cannot comment on that intelligently since there wasn’t much there that is intelligent to begin with. I will say that you are incredibly paranoid and phobic about anyone who feels differently than you do. That doesn’t make you a mass murderer, but it does make you exactly like the fundies in many other ways. It also makes you incredibly unpleasant to be around, I’d wager.
Then, how comes it “amuses” you when I compare belief X with belief Y?
In what way is my comparing attending a weekly christian sunday school with attending a weekly astrology school not valid?
The irony that you are so much like those you despise amuses me.
From a cultural standpoint there’s a huge difference. Religion has been around for as long as recorded history in one form or another and adherants far outnumber people who claim no religious beliefs. This doesn’t make it correct, naturally, however this history has undoubtedly shaped and defined human history and still does to this day. Wheras Astrology is something that a few people read in the paper for amusement, even less people get really hardcore into it with charts and crap like that, but none of this has really changed the course of human development from a historical perspective like religion has.
As far as my personal beliefs, I would feel the same way about an Astrology nut as I would a religious nut - more power to you but not my thing and please don’t expect me to change my mind on that because I already looked into it, thanks.
So in that respect, there is no difference in the “respect” that I grant it. But you do see the difference between the personal and the historical, i will assume…
Last time I checked, astrology was a fringe belief used for entertainment purposes. Christianity, on the other hand, is a concept that has had extensive impact on the country, our society, our literature, and, unfortunately, our government, too. I repeat: I’m pretty staunchly agnostic but that does not give me license to blind myself to the influence of religion in our society. I think children would benefit from being exposed to such ideas, rather than protected from them.
If a kid of mine wanted to be a zealous atheist after learning a little bit about the Bible, that’s fine, at least it is a considered opinion. At least they’d be able to argue against Christianity from an informed position, rather than arguing in a way so blatantly offensive to the people to who care about these things. If one wishes to disspell the stories of the Bible, I think one does better to question it directly (Where did Cain’s wife come from? How did the Wise Men follow the star in the East if they were coming from the East?) than to simply mock it as being a “fairie tale” about “trolls” and whathaveyou. Please tell me if that line of reasoning has ever been successful in convincing any relgious people to reevaluate their beliefs.
If the kids want to grow up to go to church every Sunday, well, whatever floats their boat. But I would consider it exceptionally poor parenting to browbeat my kids into conforming with my view of the universe, or to deny them the opportunity to disspell their own ignorance of organized religion.
It goes without saying – actually, it has been said – that I would not approve of a Sunday school that would brainwash children into converting to some particular line of Christianity. I’m sure there’s perfectly good Sunday schools out there that are not sun my Jimmy Swaggert or Peter Popov types. I’m not sure that you understand that not all relgious people seek to expand their ranks at any available opportunity.
Which reminds me, when I was in grad school, a few buddies and I used to get beers with the campus minister. One friend jokingly asked the minister not to try to convert him. The minister responded, “I couldn’t even try, I leave that to Him.” The topic of religion never again came up. We just all drank beer, hung out, and watched soccer on TV. Imagine that – a man of the cloth not seeking to brainwash our soft minds, tenderized by pints upon pints of beer!
By the way, John_Stamos, don’t let them get to you. Keep your cool, man.
Please elaborate… Am i the one trying to teach kids about atheism?
I assume you’re aware that many things that can be found nowadays in western society only as part of tales were and are part of the mythology of many people. So, in what way is equating current religious beliefs with say, a belief in spirits living in the woods inadequate?
So, you’re stating that merely being part of a religion (for instance shamanism or animisn) makes a belief “special” and deserving of special consideration? Then what’s wrong exactly with comparing christianism with a belief in “fairy tales” creatures?
How do they dare being “amused” by someting other people seriously believe in?
“Crap”? Did I read correctly the word “crap” that you didn’t like me using?
As you probably noted, that’s precisely the “religion change the course of human history” part that makes some people who don’t believe religion has any basis in facts very warry about it.
Did you use the word “nut”?
Since you’re rering to the importance of religion, do I need to point out that astrology and other methods of divination have been considered as truth, taken very seriously, and involved in major decision-making thorough most of human history?
What you’re calling “nuts”, here, aren’t persons who want to kill people who don’t believe in astrology, but simply people who really believe in astrology. They aren’t the equivalent of fundie wackos, they’re the equivalent of your average church goer, who generally doesnt go to church because he’s “amused” by the concept, but because he actually believes his religion to be true.
The difference you’re making between “nuts” and “non-nuts” isn’t based on people acting in extreme ways, but merely on their belief being mainstream or not.
Oh, yes, there’s a huge difference in the respect you grant them. You don’t mind calling them “nuts” believing in “crap”, but would be mightily offended by the same words being used in relation with another cherry-picked belief.
It would be nice if you had the grace to admit that your were wrong that a majority of people in the US believe in evolution. Are you going to pull the old canard of “only 1,000 people?” Maybe you should get your high school statistics books out as well. Are we back to the effect of religion on the world again? If so, I’ll point to the mid-east and the madrases.
I guess I just wouldn’t want to expose my child on a regular basis to religious indoctrination which may teach that people who don’t think like they do will go to hell, or to factually incorrect theories on the origin of the universe.
Would I mind if my child wanted to go a couple of times with his friends to see what it was like? No. I’ve taken him to the zoo as well, I just didn’t leave him there.
And he might feel equally excluded if you don’t want to bring him around to collect mushrooms in the nearby wood. It won’t prevent some parents from having an issue with you doing so without asking them first.
clairobscur, let’s get back to the OP. I have no problem with you not sending your kids to Sunday school. Why do you object so strenuously to someone else sending their kids to Sunday school?
Prove it has helped more than it has hurt. What could religion possibly do to make up for all the evil it’s caused ?
Given the historical and present behavior of religion, it’s hardly paranoia. And it’s not “anyone who feels differently than you do” that I worry about, it’s certain, specific things, like religion. I’m not likely to be killed because I hate brocolli or like video games. I am quite possibly going to die because of religion, whether it’s an American version of the Taliban, a terrorist WMD, or a bullet to the head for not believing in God. If disliking that makes me unpleasant, too bad.
For most of history, the same could said of slavery, and the near-slavery of women. All that proves is that large scale evil and stupidity are common.