View Full Version : Dalai Lama stirs up trouble in Portland, Oregon!
Now, if this guy was a Christian leader, you liberals would be having an anal hemorrage over this situation...
<a href = "http://oregonlive.com/education/oregonian/index.ssf?/education/oregonian/n3_dalai08.frame">A report...</a>
But this is what happens when conservatives try to blur the line 'twixt church and state. Besides, there's something more universal about world peace than "God hates fags".
But this is, indeed, what happens when the lines blur. Raise a toast to the OCA. ;)
--Tiassa :cool:
Emerald
05-10-01, 08:14 PM
Bowser,
Originally posted by Bowser Now, if this guy was a Christian leader, you liberals would be having an anal hemorrage over this situation...
Considering the fact that the Dalai Lama's role will be as a world advocate for peace and nonviolence, and there will not be prayer at the meeting, what is the issue? I don't think there should be a requirement for the chosen speaker to be nonreligious - only that he/she should keep his/her religious views to him/herself. I'm pretty sure the Dalai Lama will be able to comply with this restriction. I don't picture him grabbing the microphone and telling the kids his way is the one true way to God and they will burn in hell for all of eternity if they don't repent now and follow him and/or his God, do you? I'm also thinking that the kids of today could use a good dose of peace and nonviolence. Additionally, I see it as a fantastic cultural learning opportunity for the kids. As long as the agenda is kept strictly secular, I see nothing to warrant a hemorrhage of any sort.
Emerald
Corp.Hudson
05-10-01, 11:36 PM
I guarantee you that if Pope John Paul II came to speak on a secular subject (like world peace) high school students would be allowed to go, and nobody would give a fuck.
hmm...blurring lines? So, if a teacher wanted to take her students to a lecture which features Mr. Mabon as the speaker, and the topic concerns safe sex, you wouldn't have a problem with that, providing, of course, he doesn't mention his faith? I am assuming that there is a universal concern regarding safe sex. Maybe the topic will be world peace. Either way...
<i>"Considering the fact that the Dalai Lama's role will be as a world advocate for peace and nonviolence, and there will not be prayer at the meeting, what is the issue?"</i>
It's very easy to see, Emerald: Who is the <a href = "http://www.s2f.com/fistick/monks.html">Dalai Lama?</a>
Talk about some lunatic shit... My best guess is that the liberals don't want your children to know this guy's beliefs. They might not take him seriously.
Hey, Corp., I'm an enlightened being who has delayed his spiritual union with the supreme spirit so that I can serve humanity. May I speak to your children?
14. Sex education focusing on condom distribution/safe sex and teaching that all forms of sexual activity are equal in value and religious beliefs are no longer relevant today. From the Oregon Citizens' Alliance website. It's in Issues, under Education; the frames on the site disagree with my browser enough that it can't extract the exact url. It won't even reopen in another window without resetting to the home page. So, http:www.oregoncitizensalliance.org is the place to start.
If Lon Mabon can pull off his speech about safe sex without resorting to religious superstition, he is welcome to do it in a public school. After all, a good educational lecture is a good educational lecture, regardless of who gives it; I mean, the biggest problem with a speaker not being taken seriously is in Mabon: he's a career loser; Corvallis and Springfield were the best he ever won, as I recall. It will be a blow to his organization, though, as they seem to think that religion needs to be in the school. But in that case, he would be keeping what was important in mind, for once.
And let's examine the April, 2001 OCA Newsletter:All authority has been given to Christ. All authority has been given to Christ. All authority has been given to Christ. The state of Oregon is included in that transfer of authority. It is God the Father who has done this thing and He will have that transfer of authority to His Christ honored and obeyed no matter what. That is why one day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father. So, uh ... yeah. But it sounds like he's got plans of his own:Verse 51 adds, " the Lord brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt according to their armies." This indicates order and this notion is confirmed in Exodus 13:18 which says, "And the children of Israel went up in orderly ranks out of the land of Egypt." This was first done by family according to the twelve tribes.
This we have adopted in the OCA structure to represent the County Director and Deputy Director. Then in Exodus 18, God established Captains over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. These Captains stay in Israel’s history for a very long time. This corresponds in the OCA as our Regional Directors (Captains), Area Captains, Precinct Captains and Neighborhood Captains.I mean, this guy cracks me up.
And the rest of the crew out there leaves might provide enough amusement to power California on the basis of calories burned laughing.
You know, I'll accept the notion of the Pope, also a spiritual and political leader. But Lon Mabon is a clown.
thanx for the laughs,
Tiassa :cool:
Did you get a home computer or a new job, Tiassa? <img src = "http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon10.gif"> Me too. But it's late. I will read the whole of your post tomorrow. It looks like the Mabon thing got your attention.
Goodnight.
So, Dalai Lama's religious beliefs are somehow based more on reality? <img src = "http://www.sciforums.com/images/icons/icon10.gif">
And that makes all the difference in the world. That's another reason Christians perceive discrimination against their beliefs. If a member of any of a number of religions were to describe their reality according to faith tradition, they would not be presenting a situation one is required to believe. In this sense, a Wiccan describing the Universe might as well be reading a Hopi creation myth, or perhaps Homer's Odyssey. Nobody is required to believe anything. Can you see fortune cookies banned from schools specifically on the grounds that it was mixing religion and state? My junior high school (public) and the University of Oregon (public) both featured horoscopes in their newspapers. In fact, my Catholic high school wasn't above horoscopes now and then. And here is another important distinction: most Christians object to horoscopes in general because their religion forbids it. (I think my school was determined to make no big deal out of horoscopes in order to prevent them from attaining a status of legitimacy among the students as a religion.) This is not sufficient grounds to purge schools of horoscopes, as the example seems to be going, because it would be favoring a religion. Not because it's a religious preference of the school; no, this brand of Christian action relies on the superiority of its philosophy. The authority of this philosophy. The Constitution disallows that kind of authority. If you want to tell the kids the Biblically historical story of how the Jews butchered the Amelekites, go for it. You just can't fail a child on the test when s/he writes that it was a slaughter, period, and God authorized nothing because there is no God, and therefore the story isn't history. (To the other, the story is a form of history, so you could knock off half-credit for that one.)
* The Dalai Lama is apparently coming to speak in a public school on the topic of world peace.
Please compare that to:
* Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools based upon Christian superstition according to the Bible.
* A book should not be allowed in a public school library because it advocates something that happens to be contrary to what is said in the Bible.
* Biblical creation should be taught in schools, and designated the factual merit of the scientific method because the Bible is infallible.
If a former National Football League player comes back to the small town of his youth, should he be denied a job teaching at the school and coaching the football team because he also runs a ministry? No. Should he be allowed to teach his religion in the school? No. Should Lon Mabon be prevented from talking about safe sex in a public school? No. Unless, of course, he advocates that bit about condoms and religion that I noted in my earlier post. That would cross the line. If the Dalai Lama said, "We must have peace because God orders it and will punish you if you disobey what I tell you God says," well, then I agree we have a problem.
But I'm not worried about the Dalai Lama being remotely stupid, much less that stupid.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
<b>14. Sex education focusing on condom distribution/safe sex and teaching that all forms of sexual activity are equal in value and religious beliefs are no longer relevant today.</b>
What would they consider safe sex? I suspect a heterosexual merriage, one partner if you will. And <i>teaching that all forms of sexual activity are equal in value and religious beliefs</i> is safe sex, Tiassa? At the very least, I would hope that you disagree with the later, that all forms of sexual activity are equal in religious beliefs. My guess is that most religions condemn most sexual activity. Does the monk agree with mabon on this idea, or is he a curious monkey too?
<i>"Should Lon Mabon be prevented from talking about safe sex in a public school? No. Unless, of course, he advocates that bit about condoms and religion that I noted in my earlier post. That would cross the line."</i>
Hmm, The part about sexual activity not being equal in value and religious beliefs? I could make the same statement without provoking my religious beliefs.
You are confusing newsprint (horoscopes) with a class of kids being bussed to a lecture where the focus is a <b>religious leader</b>. I think there is a big difference between the two and very little similarity. Blurring a line, Tiassa?
Even if we could establish that Lon Mabon is a bright guy with a nonsectarian message, he still shouldn't be allowed to speak to kids about safe sex because he is the leader of a religious organization?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
If I had children in school and lived in that region, I would encourage them to attend and hope that they would not object to my attendance. With all that is going on in schools right now across the United States, what a timely and fantastic opportunity this is to have the message of peace and non-violence reinforced. Coming from the Dalai Lama, who was bullied into exile himself, seems to make the message even more relevant and significant.
The only thing I would like to point out otherwise is that Bowser has a valid point in the separation of church and state. Where he seems to go astray is where he compares a speech about world peace to the "anti-Christian" persecution through the device of church-state separation.
So what if the Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader? The real test is what he says, and whether he asserts as fact that God orders the children to believe this. What interests me, though, is that presenting the issue of world peace is apparently as objectionable as refusing to educate children about biological processes because it might offend one specific version of God. If Lon Mabon, for instance, were to argue against condoms in his safe sex lecture, is there any difference 'twixt the following?
* Safe sex is abstinence because condoms are only 88% effective against pregnancy, and data suggests that they are ineffective against certain sexually-transmitted diseases.
* Safe sex does not include condoms because condoms allow promiscuity without responsibility, and God says you aren't allowed to do that.
Unless the Dalai Lama asserts God's will as fact, there's no more reason to prevent his speech than Mabon giving a safe-sex speech including the first option above. Hudson pointed out the Pope ... same thing there. (I have less faith in the Pope's ability to leave religious doctrine out of it than I do the Dalai Lama; the Dalai Lama has less of an obligation from God to make God the first consideration in everything.)
So in the end, Mirror, I agree with you because a speech by the Dalai Lama is a far cry from demanding the exclusive right to broadcast prayers before a high-school football game. It is a far cry 'twixt advocating world peace and advocating the objective equivalence of myth and science. It is a far cry, indeed, between advocating unity and advocating state-sponsored ostracism based on the Bible.
Christians should not object; to object once again demonstrates that the persecuted have chosen to become the persecutors. Besides, as there are no atheists in foxholes, it would seem that world peace would eliminate part of the theistic market-share.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
grimjester
05-12-01, 02:27 AM
I would say that even if the Dali did preach his religion, it would still be ok. As long as the school officals do not say "This is the one true religion, hold no others before it."
I do not think anyone would argue against a well rounded education. Meaning, getting both sides of the issue, so that you might decide. Actually, where I went to Public school, we were taught about creationism, merely because it is a view point, and it could possibly be something we come across.
School is about Learning. I do not believe there should be rules that govern what can be learned about and what cannot. If the Pope wishes to talk about World peace, via a religious belief, and if there is enough people wanting to see it, then by all means, bus them there.
If all are incorporated equally, and without prejudice, then who cares. I would say the students are better off knowing and having a broader view of how different cultures, and religions think.
Emerald
05-12-01, 09:05 AM
Bowser,
Originally posted by Bowser
It's very easy to see, Emerald: Who is the <a href = "http://www.s2f.com/fistick/monks.html">Dalai Lama?</a>
Talk about some lunatic shit... My best guess is that the liberals don't want your children to know this guy's beliefs. They might not take him seriously.
Hey, Corp., I'm an enlightened being who has delayed his spiritual union with the supreme spirit so that I can serve humanity. May I speak to your children?
I don't care if he thinks he's a reincarnation of Howard the Duck - how is this any stranger than a guy who thinks he's the only begotten son of God, born of a virgin, for the purpose of dying on a cross as a sacrificial lamb to save us from our sins, but only if we're gullible enough to believe such lunatic claims? At least he's not claiming to be the only path to God, with all others leading straight to hell. :rolleyes:
Emerald
With all due respect to the author, it seems that a more appropriate title might have been something along the lines of: "Republicans stir up trouble..."
Tiassa,
You wrote:
"What interests me, though, is that presenting the issue of world peace is apparently as objectionable as refusing to educate children about biological processes because it might offend one specific version of God. If Lon Mabon, for instance, were to argue against condoms in his safe sex lecture, is there any difference 'twixt the following?
* Safe sex is abstinence because condoms are only 88% effective against pregnancy, and data suggests that they are ineffective against certain sexually-transmitted diseases.
* Safe sex does not include condoms because condoms allow promiscuity without responsibility, and God says you aren't allowed to do that."
Yes, of course, there is a difference and we should all be concerned about children being educated about safe sex. Does it matter how the message is presented?
Yes, and yes, I think.
I think about what loving parents must be facing in the war to keep their children safe from the horrors of an AIDS-induced death. Each child is different and might respond differently to various rationale in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In this matter of life and death, what of the child who is impervious to statistics but open to God (even if such imperviousness/openess is a response on the part of the child in the throes of rebellion against their scientific, atheist-minded parents)? Would it be morally wrong or irresponsible to effectively reach a child through God, even if the parents do not hold such a belief themselves?
Emerald
05-12-01, 02:13 PM
Mirror,
Originally posted by mirror Would it be morally wrong or irresponsible to effectively reach a child through God, even if the parents do not hold such a belief themselves?
What is morally wrong or irresponsible in this scenario is when one takes it upon themselves to usurp parental authority in the teaching of religious/spiritual matters to underage children. If it isn't your child, and if you haven't been granted parental consent - don't go there.
Emerald
In this matter of life and death, what of the child who is impervious to statistics but open to God (even if such imperviousness/openess is a response on the part of the child in the throes of rebellion against their scientific, atheist-minded parents)? Would it be morally wrong or irresponsible to effectively reach a child through God, even if the parents do not hold such a belief themselves?
As a general statement, I don't find a whole lot to argue with. However, in the principle of our Constitution, there are a number of issues, which, when presented, justify this separation of church and state.
* Many of the same voters who feel that sex-ed should be excluded from schools because it is the parent's duty, and who would also object to the direct lesson that "there is not God" would also prescribe their religious values to an entire school system if given a chance at the ballot box. One need only look in newspapers to find the letters, sound-bite news to hear the quips; more directly, though, they can listen to their neighbors who are of the faith describe what is "fair".
* The problem, then, with injecting religion into public schools is the issue of how much religion, which religion, and whose interpretation thereof. To the one hand, there are creationists who desire objective equivalence between myth and the scientific process. To the other are those who think "fair" is the broadcasting of prayers specific to one religion.
* This brings about an interesting notion. For instance, how much would Tony1 object if his kids were subjected to a Catholic interpretation of an issue? Would Bowser object to a bracing Foursquare or Kingdom Hall lecture advising children of church doctrine from the assumption of fact? I am reminded of a caller to an Oregon radio talk-show who lamented his daughter's anti-Christian teachers who failed her for her faith; as the host was able to extricate from the caller, the reason for his daughter's failure on that paper was not that she advocated "Jesus is Lord", but that she failed to accommodate the requirements of the assignment (number of sources) and had cited the Bible inappropriately for academic uses (no copyright information). This same caller also lamented a school field trip to a local longhouse for a powwow, on the grounds that he feared the school was trying to "indoctrinate" his child to pagan religions.
* Is the Superintendent of Public Instruction an elected office in your state? Consider what happens in those states where candidates for public office are required by law to believe in God (South Carolina comes to mind, and as I recall, there's one or two others). Think about this: even if SPI is appointed, no atheist governor of South Carolina will have the opportunity to appoint a person to that office, whether or not that atheist gives a rat's about what a person's faith is.
* And I'm trying not just to focus on mainstream Chrstianity; you know, I have a copy of Book of Mormon that I really should read, but there is that, and I've known a good number of people who object to Latter Day Saints the way Tony1 objects to Catholics. So while I'm at it, there's the Scientologists, American tribal peyote-religions, and very possibly some Unitarians to account for. Can you imagine Maharishi Yogi's PhysEd201: Yoga and Levitation? ;)
Religion must not be part of the publicly-financed arena in any way. What happens to the spiritual value of religion if a Catholic child attends the religiously-infused sentiments of his teacher or "important guest speaker" who happens to be an Seventh-Day Adventist who, as many of them seem to, to judge by the literature about it, think the Pope is the Devil?
In history class, what of a Muslim child whose teacher is Catholic? As the lesson reaches the Crusades, what if that teacher proudly reads off the terrible things written of Islam by Popes to justify the campaigns? A shining moment in history, Hassam, when we called your people dogs (which is an interesting footnote related to the Hebrew keleb, but a ridiculous digression at this time) and then slaughtered the women and children in the sands of the deserts! There are very subtle histories at play, variances in cultural values: nobody likes to be reminded of their ancestors being thrashed, but can you imagine having to sit through a religiously-infused history? What if Sally over there got up and read her paper and said that what happened during the Crusades was okay because the Mohammedans were sinners and enemies of God?
Reducing the schools to target zones for religious sentiment spawns fundamentalism as everyone reaches for their hardest ammo.
As a matter of fact, I'll go so far as to say that I believe I understand what you're getting at with that, and I find myself agreeing with the principle. However, as I look back over what I've written, I see that at least one part of that is a little bit melodramatic, but that might be the point. What greater currency in the Universe than one's soul? Souls are concepts of religion, and that can be established until we find the physical evidence of a soul. (And I'm all for ghosts and goblins, and I've seen some rather freaky phenomenon on the ghost-like level, but there's no way I would ever attempt to affirm the soul based solely on what I've perceived.) But as I start to consider the longer ramifications for society, I see the allowance of religious sentiment in the public education system an invitation to construct the most fundamental human barrier to harmony.
If a person is of a Christian sect that believes other sects are going to Hell, what happens if the only way to get your child off drugs is to entrust him to one of those hellbound sects? As long as Jesus forgives, you've got a chance, but would you endanger his soul by creating the temptation to convert to that other religion? Remember, it's His Life v. His Soul at this point.
I have just, because of this, had a memory of Barker's Great and Secret Show in which a young girl turns to her mother and says, "It's okay, Momma, I know you wouldn't have shot me." But they had just been staring down the Evil, so the mother affirms, "I would have shot you stone dead." Attempting to empathize with a character who believes in such principles of judgement, I believe I understand that woman; hard to say, though.
And yes, it's melodramatic. But it is a fundamental currency of utmost value, this thing called a soul. And if one perceives that pressure, it gets merciless real quick.
To be honest, I say do it. Trust everyone to behave and remove the barrier 'twixt religion and schools. It would take a year, maybe, and two at the most before the barrier would be put back in place. I don't see the trust paying off because the stakes can quickly become ineffable.
If all are incorporated equally, and without prejudice, then who cares. I agree, I agree. But the soul is of greater value to redemptive religions. If there is a punishment, a lack, or a deprivation at stake, it's simply more important. Like I mentioned, they should go for it, and apologize to the rest of society in advance. It won't stay equal for long.
But that would definitely be an occasion on which I would remind all that ... well, exactly ... those three words are ridiculously sacred and cannot be used until that day. But I would, I would. For this, I most definitely would. There is nothing in the Universe more important to a redemptionist than their soul.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Emerald,
You wrote:
"What is morally wrong or irresponsible in this scenario is when one takes it upon themselves to usurp parental authority in the teaching of religious/spiritual matters to underage children."
I didn't see that as an issue here since, in the Dalai Lama report provided, parental permission was required for the students to attend...?
In the scenario presented, Republicans are cited as questioning the use of school resources to facilitate the trip after the fact - parental permission having been granted.
"If it isn't your child, and if you haven't been granted parental consent - don't go there."
As a general practice, I agree.
Emerald
05-12-01, 11:48 PM
Mirror,
Originally posted by mirror
Emerald,
You wrote:
"What is morally wrong or irresponsible in this scenario is when one takes it upon themselves to usurp parental authority in the teaching of religious/spiritual matters to underage children."
I didn't see that as an issue here since, in the Dalai Lama report provided, parental permission was required for the students to attend...?
In the scenario presented, Republicans are cited as questioning the use of school resources to facilitate the trip after the fact - parental permission having been granted.
I think you may have misunderstood my point, or perhaps I misunderstood yours when I responded to this scenario presented by you:
I think about what loving parents must be facing in the war to keep their children safe from the horrors of an AIDS-induced death. Each child is different and might respond differently to various rationale in the fight against HIV/AIDS. In this matter of life and death, what of the child who is impervious to statistics but open to God (even if such imperviousness/openess is a response on the part of the child in the throes of rebellion against their scientific, atheist-minded parents)? Would it be morally wrong or irresponsible to effectively reach a child through God, even if the parents do not hold such a belief themselves?
I was not referring in any way to the Dalai Lama's visit, for which parental consent was obtained (with the understanding was that religion would be kept out of it). I was responding to what I thought was your suggestion that it is acceptable for well-meaning adults to meddle in the religious training of children who might be open to God, even though their parents do not hold such beliefs, at least in the war against HIV/AIDS.
Emerald
Emerald,
I see.
In an effort to protect their child from HIV/AIDS:
Would it be morally wrong or irresponsible for a parent to effectively reach their child through God (or allow their child to be reached through God), even though the parent does not believe in God?
grimjester
05-13-01, 01:56 AM
Would it be morally irreprehensible for a person not to tell someone about safe sex, via teachings of God, or other, if they knew that it was the only way to get the kid to listen? Even if the childs own parents are not of that belief?
Meaning, if I know this kid is going to have unprotected sex, and their chances of getting hiv are high, would I be right to encourage them to seek a relationship with God, or to preach to them about the morals of the bible, knowing that they are open to such. And that these morals, will protect this kid from making what could be a horrible mistake?
grimjester,
Either way, I think I could live with myself (and, hopefully, the child lives):
If I were the parent, I'd gladly accept the label of "hypocrite" if need be.
If I were not the parent, I'd endure the wrath of the parents and accept the label of "buttinsky" if need be.
I've been called worse things throughout my lifetime and survived.
You?
While we're on the subject:
If the son of my Catholic neighbors, whose religion forbids both premarital sex and birth control, confided in me that he was determined to have his first sexual encounter tonight with penicillin patty, I'd at least hand him a condom.
Emerald
05-13-01, 08:36 AM
Mirror,
Originally posted by mirror
Either way, I think I could live with myself (and, hopefully, the child lives):
If I were the parent, I'd gladly accept the label of "hypocrite" if need be.
If I were not the parent, I'd endure the wrath of the parents and accept the label of "buttinsky" if need be.
I've been called worse things throughout my lifetime and survived.
You?
So if your child was in the throes of rebellion against you and your religious beliefs, and I could see the possibility that he might eventually become infected with HIV/AIDS, I should feel free to jump in and teach him my religious beliefs (to which I'm quite certain you would strongly object), because he has indicated to me that he is open to them?
Emerald
Emerald
05-13-01, 08:50 AM
Mirror,
Originally posted by mirror
In an effort to protect their child from HIV/AIDS:
Would it be morally wrong or irresponsible for a parent to effectively reach their child through God (or allow their child to be reached through God), even though the parent does not believe in God?
What a parent <i>does</i> speaks far louder and more clearly to a child than what the parent <i>says</i>, so for atheist parents to teach their child about an entity in whom they themselves do not believe is indeed dishonest. The child will eventually call them on it and it will be worse than if they had never tried that approach in the first place. In this scenario, the parents lose credibility with their child and things quickly spiral out of control from there on out.
However, if the child comes to the parents and asks permission to attend church with a friend, for example, and the parents grant permission while remaining honest and open with the child about their own beliefs, I don't see any problem with this as long as the lines of communication between parent and child are kept open, and no one is attempting to usurp parental authority.
Emerald
Emerald,
"So if your child was in the throes of rebellion against you and your religious beliefs, and I could see the possibility that he might eventually become infected with HIV/AIDS, I should feel free to jump in and teach him my religious beliefs (to which I'm quite certain you would strongly object), because he has indicated to me that he is open to them?"
If my child indicated to you that he/she was determined to practice unsafe sex despite what I (the parent) had tried my best to teach them and they were open to your reasoning instead, which caused them to refrain from practicing unsafe sex - unless your religion was going to use my child as a human sacrifice - then, be my guest, friend. I would object much more to my child unnecessarily having to experience the horrors of an AIDS-induced death and I would forever be in your debt.
When my child matured, we could discuss our religious differences in a less hostile manner, I'm sure. At least we'd share a life where we could have such a discourse.
Thanks.
Emerald,
I think that a child in rebellion would not be prone to ask permission.
"What a parent does speaks far louder and more clearly to a child than what the parent says, so for atheist parents to teach their child about an entity in whom they themselves do not believe is indeed dishonest. The child will eventually call them on it and it will be worse than if they had never tried that approach in the first place. In this scenario, the parents lose credibility with their child and things quickly spiral out of control from there on out."
Sure, it's not totally honest to the parent's belief system, however, it would be honest to the child's belief system whether they got their parent's permission to believe that way or not. Regardless, the sacrifice would be well worth it, I think. The fact that the child would actually be around to call them on it at a later date speaks to the better, I think. That is, I think it would be far worse if the parent limited the child's belief options, and the child engaged in unsafe sex, contracted HIV and suffered with and died from AIDS at an early age, just so that the parent's credibility could remain in tact.
Like I said, I can live with being called a hypocrite if that's what it takes for my child to live.
All,
As an atheist I would have no problem with my children turning to a religion if they wished. Note that I have 3 teenage daughters (14,17,19), and I was a single parent with them for several years.
I have found from many experiences that my daughters rarely believe what I say with absolute certainty, and often not at all, they simply do not have the life experiences to comprehend the truth if they only hear it. Trying to insist on something creates rebellion, but saying nothing gives them no guidance and creates confusion. My approach for the past few years has been to make recommendations and to never insist on anything even though I would disagree inwardly. It is also important to support the child with whatever choice they make. This approach has worked very well. It is interesting that they have generally followed my example and I think that is due to the respect for me that I have worked hard to achieve.
I believe that it is difficult to understand something without actual personal experience. I learnt a great deal from my experience as a devout Christian and I would not deny my children from also learning from similar experiences.
If my teachings have had any effect, as I hope, then I must have the courage to allow them to learn (often the hard way), and then see if they can reach my expected hoped for correct conclusions. If that doesn’t occur then I can look forward to many years of exciting healthy debates.
Cris
Well said and well done, Cris.
but not entirely ... since we're working with the concepts of parental authority and moral responsibility ...
However, if the child comes to the parents and asks permission to attend church with a friend, for example, and the parents grant permission while remaining honest and open with the child about their own beliefs, I don't see any problem with this as long as the lines of communication between parent and child are kept open, and no one is attempting to usurp parental authority. While you'll find no disagreement with me, we run once again into the notion that the stupid, dishonest, or otherwise are the powerful movers in society. Just as those who demand guns for peace cannot keep peace; just as those who assert sexual morality reproduce like rabbits; so also do we find that those conservatives so concerned with certain "rights" are the first ones to abandon them. I need not invoke King of the Hill here, because I know of this happening in Seattle: Imagine that Tommy's youth group at church wants to have a social event. This seems benign, but what is it more than a marketing maneuver? In the context I'm after, what happens when Tommy asks Billy to go, and then when Billy gets there, the preacher threatens and harangues Billy until he signs a document pledging his allegiance to Jesus? Seems devilish, eh? Except that I know of a couple of churches that have, in the last couple of years, engaged in this practice. I mean, here we see that the dishonest are attempting to increase their numbers through coercion, and the honest have no recourse because they will not stoop to dishonesty. What ends up happening then is an explanation of motive, and that results (often-times) in the building of prejudices. When a child learns that a preacher has committed him to God by a contract that would not be legal to sell cookies door-to-door because of its duress, what is that impact? Sure, it took a while for me, but the misbehavior of preacher after preacher, congregation after congregation, and Christian soul after Christian soul within the context of my experience has left me quite soured on the potential of this thing called Christianity.
Yes, it's a slight digression. But the point is that children should be exempted from threats against those seemingly most private of issues. What happens when we put that coercion, that duress, that threat against the most fundamental of human currencies, into the classroom?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Tiassa,
I remember asking you about this the other day but I see that my post didn't take.
What three words are you talking about?
***But that would definitely be an occasion on which I would remind all that ... well, exactly ... those three words are ridiculously sacred and cannot be used until that day.***
Thanks.
Literally, I cannot say them unless the occasion comes up that warrants them. Honest, it's just a weird thing I have, and I'll even go so far as to tell you a little about why.
* First note: a proper sentence of this phrase is actually four words, the first being "I".
* Quick tale: So Steve's old girlfriend shows up one day and spends some time wrecking his life. (Work with me on the characterizations; truth is stranger than fiction.) Anyway, one night, something Hideous happens with one of her ex-boyfriends that leaves her in the hospital for days, Steve with stitches, and Jon (enter Jon) taking a damn-near lethal dose of pepper spray. Now all three of those people have their own issues but it shakes out that Steve just doesn't give a damn anymore, and fades away for a short period, after telling Jon that he's not mad, but he's not going to sit by and watch her do the same thing to a friend. So Jon ends up with the girl ... who proceeds to ruin his life. After the final breakup, in which she hit him with a glass table, beat him with a staff, and attempted to kill him with a knife before calling the police and saying he was going to attack her (the officer, coincidentally, was the same who attended the prior disaster with the ex, and the pepper spray ... that's Salem for you ... and this officer left the scene advising the girlfriend: "Next time, hit yourself or something; I need a bruise on you before I can take him to jail." Can we just say that the officer understood entirely?) About a week after this happens, Jon and I are sitting in a restaurant at about midnight, drinking coffee and smoking, and Steve reappears suddenly, as bright and chipper as can be. He graps a cup, pours some coffee, and sits down. He lights a cigarette and passes a small piece of paper to Jon that reads: Because honor forbids me from saying it ....
There is something people say on these occasions; something many of my friends are telling me now, and, yes, about a woman. As a proper sentence, it is a four-word phrase. Nobody I know who says it includes the word, "I", anymore; thus common vernacular has it at three words. That written expression was the last time this four (or three) word phrase was used in one of my most endearing social veins, about anything. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about, too ;)
Really, I do. Think about one of the most childish things we all know how to say. What else do people say when a friend hurts their self ignoring what turns out to be good advice?
What else could I possibly say when a religion-infested public school system festers, ruptures, and bleeds all over the communities?
What did environmentalists say when Chernobyl melted?
See what happens when you keep threads of theism in your life? You develop superstitions. Ah, the pity of it ... ;)
Don't step on a crack ....
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Tiassa,
Well, I guess you told me... thanks.
But now you've left me wondering what my mother's back has to do with this. :)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.