Religion
Related: About this forum5 Reasons Not To Indoctrinate Kids Against Religion
October 27, 2014
by Wendy Thomas Russell
My post last week on speaking about religion with kids in neutral terms has definitely ruffled some feathers. The comment thread features some folks who believe quite strongly that religion should be treated like the enemy and that atheist parents are misleading their kids by speaking objectively about the subject. Interestingly (or maybe not), its a perspective I encounter far more often in people who have not yet had children. In a post today by fellow Patheos blogger Kaveh Mousav (the pseudonym used by an ex-Muslim atheist living in Iran brave chap!), Kaveh argues that he plans to teach his children (when he has them) that religion is nonsense, period. And others have chimed in that indoctrinating kids into atheism is A-Okay as long as it doesnt involve abuse.
Now, theres no doubt that there are some striking differences between religious and non-religious indoctrination. With non-religious indoctrination, kids are never threatened with hell, for instance, or made to worry that an all-powerful being is judging their every move. (Thank God for that.) But there are plenty of negative consequences nonetheless. More and more, for example, as atheism goes mainstream, we run the risk of creating a generation of anti-religious zealots children who grow up with no understanding of why anyone would hang on to religious beliefs, no empathy for those who do, and no ability to explore those beliefs for themselves.
For the purposes of my book, Relax, Its Just God, which comes out in February (yes, you just witnessed shameless self-promotion), I define indoctrination as the halfway mark between simple suggestion and full-on brainwashing. You can be reasonably sure you are indoctrinating your kids if you teach them:
1. Your way is the only right way to believe. In this context, right means good; it does not necessarily mean true. This is because most people assume that what they believe is true and theres nothing wrong with that. But truth doesnt always equate with benevolence or decency. In other words, its okay to think other peoples beliefs are wrong; its another to assume theyre bad.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/naturalwonderers/indoctrination/#ixzz3HTn0sEzt
elleng
(130,865 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)UU window, no doubt
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Most of the stained glass I googled was for desktop backgrounds, I figure. Very eclectic. Gorgeous, indeed!
https://www.google.com/search?q=stained+glass&num=30&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=n5BSVKzhM4magwTg4oGICQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1314&bih=671#imgdii=_
--imm
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)kids about religion even if religion has no place in your life? If so I disagree. Kids should be free when they reach the age to develop their own philosophies to chose religion for themselves if they want but I don't have to teach them about religion. I think it is better to teach kids critical thinking and to investigate various philosophies.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)that are a part of your life?
I agree that kids should ideally be free to pursue their own beliefs or lack of beliefs regarding religion, but how can they be expected tot do that if they know nothing about religion?
The biggest problem, imo, is that ignorance leads to intolerance and bigotry. Most people are going to come into contact with those that see the world differently than they do. If they know nothing about other religions, or even worse have been given very negative messages about them, they are likely to judge them negatively.
When you talk about teaching kids critical thinking and to investigate various philosophies, how is that different than giving them information about different religions and encourage them to explore?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I don't see religion as a positive force so I would not teach about it.
Not as an insult to anyone but I think organized religion is superstition or cultish.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)religion being a superstition or cultish?
What are you likely to tell them about in individuals that believe? How are you likely to respond if they make fun of or disparage their peers who are religious?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)make choices for ourselves. You can respect people's choices without agreeing with what they chose.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But in order to respect other people's beliefs (and those with no beliefs), I think you need to have some basic understanding of what they are.
The author argues against indoctrination. I think she makes your point in some ways.
FWIW, I don't' fully agree that religious beliefs or lack of beliefs is a choice. Could you choose to be a believer?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I never believed what I was taught about Catholicism. I decided in high school to develop my own philosophy of life. By contrast my brother is a Catholic priest. We had similar upbringings but chose different paths. We get along fine
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Just goes to show you that many will follow their own path even if they are raised with a certain degree of indoctrination.
I am glad that you and your brother get along.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)and parents for teaching critical thinking skills and to search for my own meaning in life.
I have to credit myself for having the courage to think on my own. My mother said I was making it easy on myself but I told her if she was right I was going to hell.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't think finding your own path is the easy way at all.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)What a fascinating order.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)about other religions and about atheism/agnosticism. The point should be that everyone is different and that's ok.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Do you think that the problem is atheists aren't teaching their children about religion?
Or could it be that atheists are teaching their children too much about religion?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)theists and gross lack of knowledge in both groups.
I think the problem is that people don't teach their children enough about diversity when it comes to religion. But even worse, I think, is when people teach their children that other beliefs are bad.
And that occurs in both theist and atheist households..
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)What I said was that atheists as a group know more than any other in the US, this indeed true.
http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/
Do you really for one moment think that atheists don't know they are vastly outnumbered in this country and that they have to go along to get along?
It's obvious whenever an atheist doesn't go along, it makes headlines and generates some really ugly rhetoric against a supremely unpopular minority.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Most of it has no statistical significance, particularly when it comes to differences between atheists, jews and mormons, so your statement is not correct
I know that atheists are grossly outnumbered and face discrimination, but I think that is changing and will continue to change. Increasing knowledge increases tolerance. This article is aimed at those who indoctrinate, and imo that applies both to believers and nonbelievers.
What in particular are you referring to in your last sentence?
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Come on, if the split was the other way you'd be crowing about it..
The meaning of my last sentence can be easily deciphered by reading this forum for a while, some posters seem to scour the internet for any hint of an atheist speaking up and then they post it here.
It's the spitting image of what conservatives are doing to blacks over on Discussionist, any black does anything wrong it's going to get posted there and clucked and tut tutted over by the conservatives there.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I wouldn't be crowing. I have merely looked at the data and I see that it is not statistically significant and doesn't support your claim.
I post both good and bad things about believers and I post both good and bad things about atheists.
Are you comparing me to conservatives that are posting ugly stories about blacks on discussionist? Really?
Why I expect better of you remains somewhat of a mystery to me. Maybe it is because I know you and I have more in common than we do differences.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)t' is extremely familiar.
Fumesucker's claim is well documented and you're just making shit up when you say 9% isn't statistically significant.
Edit: For clarification, YES, comparing the MEANS by which you are debating. Tactics are the same. Not the content, obviously, someone posting the CONTENT that was brought up for comparison would be MIRT'd in a heartbeat.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I find that difficult to believe.
There are clearly posters here who scour the internet looking for negative stories about atheists, the most despised minority in America.
Why is it so easy to see the motivation in the case of conservatives going after blacks and so opaque when it's a different minority being put in the crosshairs?
I try not to subscribe to the negative view of you that some atheists on this board have but you don't make it easy when you blow off clear facts with a hand wave because they don't fit your agenda.
You can't even honestly admit that few theists honestly teach their children about atheism despite the fact that you expect atheists to teach their children about religion.
It's fascinating the difference between the way Muslims and atheists are treated here on the DU, if anyone consistently searched out negative stories about Muslims to post here they would come in for a great deal of criticism on DU from non-Muslims because Islamophobia and yet the only posters who complain about exactly the same tactic being used against atheists are the atheists themselves.
The religious privilege drips off this place and so many of you cannot admit it even exists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are some members that seem to have an agenda and some consistently post stories that make atheists look bad and some post stories that consistently make christians look bad. I am not one of those people.
I think you have bought the negative view of me completely. What do you think my agenda is? I clearly agreed with you that theists don't teach their children about atheism and said that the message of this article could be applied either way.
It is also fascinating that there is a difference between he way muslims and christians are treated here on DU. Christians seem to be fair targets for abuse and ridicule.
I very much agree that religious privilege exists, but I don't think it exists on DU.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Non Muslims on the other hand are lined up to push back against any negative stories about Muslims.
That was actually most of my point, the difference in attitude toward the cherry picking of negative stories.
When you tell me that what amounts to a full grade point difference B vs an A in religious knowledge is "not statistically significant" how can I take what you say seriously?
If you go in for surgery, all else being equal do you want the B student or the A student to be wielding the scalpel?
How about your airline pilot, you want the B student or the A student in the cockpit?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So I would look at a lot more than just the grad when it came to a surgeon.
I will acknowledge that the PEW study shows that Atheists, Jews and Mormons do better than other groups. But I will maintain that there is no significant difference between 20.9, 20.5 and 20.3 out of 32 questions in a survey of 3,412 people. I'm not a statistician but I have enough training and experience in statistics to see that this is not a significant difference.
It's not a letter grade by a long shot. If we were looking at a 4.0 GPA scale, the difference would be a 4.0 vs a 3.92 vs. a 3.88, none of which would anywhere close to a B. Another way to look at it would be that the atheists group got 65% right vs.64% for the Jews vs 63.4% for the mormons.
I can not do the actual statistical evaluation of this data and don't see it in the report, but it's pretty clear that these differences are not significant.
And I find your impugning my character for saying so insulting and beneath you.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)lawl
You bet I'll teach my kid about all the other religions. For starters, hundreds of dead religions that humanity has already shaken off like a bad case of fleas.
Then he'll be prepared for, and recognized the same regurgitated bullshit from the current crop of wishful thinking.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)They're going to be surrounded with people who believe in it. If you don't teach them about it, the people who do will be those that actually believe in it.
It's just like sex and relationships. If you don't teach your kids, tv and their peers will, and they'll do a crappy job of it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)are different in terms of their religious beliefs or lack of beliefs is critical.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)is not.
libodem
(19,288 posts)My oldest and youngest sons are nonbelievers. The older son is somewhat like me in that he isn't religious but does seek spirituality in nontraditional ways. The younger is like my dad and a flat nonbeliever in anything unscientific
My middle son had a best friend from a religious family and always liked going to church, youth group and Young Life at school. He is a fabulous father of 4 and they are regular church attendees..
Ya just never know. I'm proud of all 3.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)One is living with someone raised in a very evangelical family. One married a muslim, another a catholic. For all three of them, religion is something that they deal with with a graceful elegance that makes me very proud.
I think this can be attributed to their having been raised around people of different faiths and no faith that were all wonderful human beings.
It will be interesting to see how they deal with their children, but I suspect they will teach understanding and tolerance.
I am also proud of all of mine.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Tolerant and open minded. I figure they come through us but they are not us and they will find their own way.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Someone posted here that he is an atheist but his brother is a priest.
That says a lot about how people are individuals and find their own paths.
Upbringing can instill values, but not beliefs, imo.
Response to rug (Original post)
Cartoonist This message was self-deleted by its author.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)I blew my top. The author of that article is a blooming idiot.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Why do you thin the author is a blooming idiot?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...or guns because you don't like drugs or guns.
Of course we don't want to indoctrinate, but to those who profess it's wrong to even expose them to religion or religions is as mindless and narrow as a point of view could be.
I would want my children to be fully informed and thus best equipped to make independent decisions.
So, in a way, sheltering them from religion could be seen as indoctrination against spirituality in favor of fundamentalist atheism or antitheism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)At the very least, people should refrain from being negative about religion, and even better if they can teach their children that there are many religions and believing or not believing is ok.
I agree with you and the author that indoctrination is not necessarily unique to religion. It can be tricky, but it makes a lot of sense to give kids as much information as you can, and to do it in a nonjudgmental fashion.
Otherwise, you are just as bas as any other "one way" group.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Why?
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)Then they have to spend the rest of the day praying for you.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Maybe religion can, too - but for the purposes of your analogy - not a good analogy. Or, at times, way too good of an analogy.
Children will hear about religion from TV, movies, other children, and then will ask questions. The answer would be, in my home, that some people believe in religion, with a nod to the very many different and conflicting religions, but I do not. The conversation - from ME - would stop right there, although my child would certainly be free to investigate on his own.
Comparative religion is taught in college. That's a good place to start making choices.
Another point that someone else brought up - I sincerely doubt that Atheism is taught as a positive choice in very many theist households. Or even mentioned. Families do not need to be infiltrated by religion if the parents are Atheist. I doubt Christian household teach Atheism, Buddhism, or being Muslim as a choice that they will enlarge upon.
When my son was 14, I let him attend Baptist church with the next door neighbors' kids. I was assured it was a social thing.
One Sunday he went with them for an "afternoon party". Turned out they BAPTIZED him, immersion style. And told me that they were afraid to let me know, in case I objected. He told me later that he just wanted to fit in with the other kids.
And he also brought home a flyer inviting us all to see a special movie about how Mormons are the anti-Christ.
My sister was a Mormon at that time. End of relationship with neighbors.
This reminds me of the push, a while back, to start teaching from the Christian bible in public elementary and middle schools. Creationism. In Georgia, I think. The same argument was used, about how children should be "exposed" to religion. As long as it was Christian, of course.
And objections were sneeringly met with "What are you afraid of?"
My answer - proselytize on your own dime, people have a right to raise their children as they wish, as far as religion goes. And if a family is atheist, that really means they don't think about religion at all, atheism is not something that needs to be discussed, attend services, all that sort of thing.For young children, because they are too young to make their own choices, Jesus is pretty much the same thing as the Easter bunny or Santa Claus. Something their parents push. Or not.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)I think they were covered under "Lying for the Lord".
I think they also knew that their close friend, a tobacco farmer down the road, who built a spec house every winter (countryside north of Durham), had built my house using untreated lumber for the supports and floor (over the crawl space). When I got transferred to Tampa by my big evil telecom company, the relocation inspector would not give the house a passing grade because of wood rot underneath the house, and in the deck where it attached to the house. When he found out who built it, he had a word with him, all visible rot was fixed (not my expense) and the relocation company bought it so I could move. This was a two year old house.
Six months later I saw that the house had sold for more than the relocation company paid me, and called them because I was entitled to part of that profit, after their expenses. The guy I talked to was really pissy - because the buyer inspection revealed that anything heavy like full washer, or refrigerator or full bathtub - would likely have fallen through a rotten floor in the near future, Had to jack up the house and replace a bunch or wood. Small rancher. So there was no profit left.
And everyone involved in that went to church together every Sunday.
Although North Carolina is a beautiful beautiful state, I did not like the politics and the racism, perhaps it is different now, and was different in the cities back then. Jesse Helms! Quite the god-fearing man indeed! And, of course, I was a damned Yankee. Legitimate target, out in the country.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)At the time I thought I'd have kids (I now know I won't), I always said that, when they got to an age to ask about religion, I'd present them with a copy of Bullfinch's Mythology, a copy of the Oxford Encyclopaedia of Religions, an essay about what I believe and tell them that they can pick any one of those. Or none at all. Or invent their own faith. And all of them are valid choices.
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)We celebrated xmas with a tree and nativity stable under it. It was from my childhood xmases. My kids played with it when they were little. They were exposed to religion through their public school where all religious holidays were acknowledged. Living in Canada's largest city there were kids from all over the world. They thrived and learned and became unbiased. I took them to religious places for weddings and funerals.
One son became engaged to a wonderful jewish girl. He thought of converting. I was supportive and told him to do what he believed in. He died of a brain tumour before they were married. He never finished the conversion. My other son is an atheist, like me and my husband was. My husband died 18 months after our younger son died.
The other day my USA brother said I had no values because I am an atheist. He also hates Obama, Democratics, blacks, hispanics, immigrants, gays and the poor and obamacare. His beliefs are opposite of my beliefs.
I told him that when he said I had no values I am insulted. He has not responded. Yet he signs off on his emails," luv ya".
edhopper
(33,570 posts)not the indoctrination of children by religious parents. Not making kids go to church and religious school and answering all the imponderables with "God".
But when atheist parents tell their kids the irrationality of religion, they don't do it in a way that can be called indoctrination.
Really?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This author is only addressing one side of it, but I definitely think the case can be made for religious indoctrination as well.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)How does one define 'anti-religious zealots'?
If my kid is just flat out immune to magical bullshit, does that make him a zealot? Or would he have to proselytize to qualify?
rug
(82,333 posts)you're spreading your ignorance and bias to another generation.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Thu Oct 30, 2014, 09:49 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
If you indoctrinate your child that religion is no more than "magical bullshit",
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=160095
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This poster is calling someone ignorant simply because he holds a different view of religion.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Oct 30, 2014, 10:01 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I totally disagree with the poster, but I respect his right to spread his own brand of ignorance. Discuss, don't hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Frivolous alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'll vote to leave it, but agree this post (not the op) is an incredibly arrogant, myopic comment. Hammer it in the replies.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Even though I think religion is magical bs and disagree that teaching children such a thing is NOT spreading ignorance (bias yes, but we should all be biased against cultural BS), I do not find this post hide-worthy.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Though, honestly, I'm surprised your post drew an alert before mine did.
rug
(82,333 posts)I preferred to simply reply to it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I sort of expected one. Yours certainly didn't warrant one
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)
it is inoculation.
Teaching them the whole story (actually all the various stories), and revealing the internal and external conflicts of each
is not indoctrination.
In fact, it is the opposite.
rug
(82,333 posts)to shed it before even beginning a neutral, let alone positive, investigation into religion.
It is indoctrination, the feeding of a parent's debatable and dubious opinions and biases into the mind of a child.
If you don't see the difference, I'd question what you consider "teaching them the whole story".
...define the "it" that is being shed.
rug
(82,333 posts)inaccurate and incomplete opinion
a parent's debatable and dubious opinions and biases
magical bullshit
...I just preferred to use terms that are not inherently offensive.
But if I must, please define the "M____ B____" that must first be shed by the child, that was the subject of your comment.
And please, provide an example.
rug
(82,333 posts)All snark aside, if a parent trying to raise a child starts teaching religion, or any other subject, by calling it bullshit, magical or otherwise, the only thing the child will learn will be the prejudices of the parent.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...that a parent can teach about religion, all religions, without calling any of them "BS".
I imply the question: does a parent, when teaching about religion, have to implicitly or explicitly favor any one religion?
rug
(82,333 posts)As to your second question, absolutely not.
...how does a parent, who is without religion, choose what to teach, specifically as not being "MB", without inherently implying that any one of the other options, is?
You can't, in all honesty, be implying that there are no contradictions between the options.
They can't all be correct at the same time.
rug
(82,333 posts)Then I listen.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)(and I quote)
"...indoctrination, the feeding of a parent's debatable and dubious opinions and biases into the mind of a child..."?
Whether you listen to their responses, afterward, or not?
Why is a review of all religions (or as many as can be reasonably presented in a parent/child conversation), and their internal and external inconsistencies, to be labeled as "indoctrination", but what you described as your modus operandi, not?
rug
(82,333 posts)As long as there's doubt, there's no indoctrination.
If you have the conversation at all, discuss those religions that interest you, whether you agree with them or not. Or they may ask you bout them.
Got to step out. Catch you a bit later.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)... still seems like "indoctrination", based on your definition.
I would still ask, what is a parent to do if none of the current "religions" are deemed interesting?
And what are the criteria used to determine if a particular set of beliefs are "interesting".
Do they have to be held as "true" to be deemed "interesting"?
And, based on your model, you seem to be suggesting that a child's responses are the only means for potentially altering the belief paradigm of a parent and these responses are used for the justification that the process described is not indoctrination.
I reject the notion, that "listening", after the "indoctrination", has any effect on lessoning the "indoctrination" or that it has any potential to altering the content of the indoctrination. It is too late, the indoctrination has already occurred.
rug
(82,333 posts)But they're likely to.
On the other hand, if you have formed opinions about religion, including negative opinions, how do you not indoctrinate them with your negative, if not hostile, opinions?
...?
Taking a long lunch?
Suddenly bored with the topic?
rug
(82,333 posts)Picking a jury next Friday.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...but you nixed my plans for a few well chosen Monty Python quotes.
Curse you.
I live to post Monty Python quotes.
rug
(82,333 posts)... too long winded and too close to normality.
I was going to go with something short and funny, such as:
Maybe you are shagged out from a long long squawk?
CUSTOMER: "Look my lad I've had just about enough of this, that parrot is definitely deceased, and when I bought it not half an hour ago you assured me that its lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out after a long squawk"
In juxtaposition to you absence of a response.
But, maybe we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "good" Monty Python humor.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Do you frame it in any manner that might suggest they are archaic/myth, somehow different from the religions that are popular today?
rug
(82,333 posts)Funny you ask, the youngest has been covering it in school for the last week. She had a lot of questions about Persephone.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If one were to ask me if the Abrahamic monotheistic god had human attributes and limitations, I would name quite a few.
How does it differ for you, if I might ask?
rug
(82,333 posts)His name is simply "I Am".
The descriptions we read there say more about the state of humanity at that time and place than it does the nature of God.
The Greek and Roman gods, on the other hand, are anything but ineffable.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)But I've seen that sort of damaged argument before...
rug
(82,333 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Everybody needs to know about religion. And Dennett is a fierce advocate of learning why and how religion has such a strong grip on culture. To me, and to him, this is not a trivial issue in the world.
If I had kids, I would insure that they would be educated in all religions, and in the sociology, psychology, and culture of religion. They would also have a lifelong course in science, which is a sort of inoculant. I would otherwise not proselytize for either belief or non-belief.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)applies to both children raised in religious homes and those raised in non-religious homes.
It is a major issue in this world and impacts everything.
I had a discussion last night with some friends. We were talking about how we are seeing more and more marriages between people of different religions and religious/nonreligious people. Like race, I think we will see a melting pot over time, and imo, that's a good thing.
longship
(40,416 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)I was speaking with my niece after her recent wedding and we got to talking about religion in general and religion in my family. She was raised totally a-religious with no exposure to religion of any flavor. Out of the blue she said she would have welcomed some interaction with religions. If only to satisfy her own curiosity.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)There are NO negative consequences to letting kids know that religion is a bunch of hooey. A "risk of creating a generation of anti-religious zealots?" How about all the PRO-religious zealots right now, trying to shove their religions down the throats of non-believers and other religions' believers? No empathy? How about the religious who show no empathy to people of other faiths or non-believers?
Do, by all means, let kids know that there's no god out there. Save them from wasting their time and rotting their brain on the stuff. This article is no better than advising parents not to teach their kids that Alex Jones is a freakshow and they shouldn't believe his conspiracy theories.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)But does this author feel that kids should be taught the tenets of Nazism else they become a generation of anti-nazi zealots?
And rug, do you feel that teaching kids that Nazism is BS is spreading ignorance and bias to another generation?
Here's the hurdle rug and this author can't get over: some of us, maybe just me, sees religion as a force of EVIL, or at least something that has no redeeming value when all its negative aspects are factored in.
rug
(82,333 posts)you know little about either.
Here's the hurdle you face: assuming you have or will have children, in any lesson you attempt to convey to them, your rhetoric will take precedence over information and fact.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)and will do so again and again.
If you think religion, unspecified and unidentified, is the equivalent of nazism, you know little about either.
-
Christianity has killed more people over its lifetime than Hitler. No, I don't think Christianity is the equivalent of Nazism, I think it is worse, and the numbers back me up. And you can add all the other deity based religions in with them. No need to specify and identify.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are killing me here.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)I have the numbers to support me, you have nothing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And there are videos of ghosts!
I see a cartoon in your future.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)There are too many bodies for you to ignore them.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)There are far too many good people of faith for you to ignore them.
What do you think we should do with them all?
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)And if they are truly good, they don't need religion. What you are missing is that people are good, for the most part. It is religion that is evil and unnecesary.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)People have the right to believe.
What you are missing is that people are good with or without religion and there is much good about religion. While an individuals goodness may not come from religion, it may be reinforced by it.
If it is unnecessary for you, that's fine. But you are totally out of line in saying it is unnecessary for others.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is even worse than I thought. I am beginning to think that you might be a Poe.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)The Papal Bull Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, played a central role in the Spanish conquest of the New World. The document supported Spains strategy to ensure its exclusive right to the lands discovered by Columbus the previous year. It established a demarcation line one hundred leagues west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands and assigned Spain the exclusive right to acquire territorial possessions and to trade in all lands west of that line. All others were forbidden to approach the lands west of the line without special license from the rulers of Spain. This effectively gave Spain a monopoly on the lands in the New World.
The Bull stated that any land not inhabited by Christians was available to be discovered, claimed, and exploited by Christian rulers and declared that the Catholic faith and the Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for and that barbarous nations be overthrown and brought to the faith itself. This Doctrine of Discovery became the basis of all European claims in the Americas as well as the foundation for the United States western expansion. In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshalls opinion in the unanimous decision held that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands. In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.
-
In other words: Let the genocide begin.
When it was all over, two continents of native Americans were obliterated. The few remaining were herded into concentration camps, called reservations. Adolph was an amateur compared to Pope Alex.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)my parents let me become an atheist.