| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2008 03:32:18 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I probably wasn't clear enough... they DO attend public school. "Religious Education" is the rough equivalent of Sunday School, held just a day or two a week (at the church) after regular classes. Think of it as learning a foreign language outside of regular school. ;-) |
I trust this would be equivelent to what I would deem as catechism. At least that is what it was called 40/50 years ago.
Just a note for your consideration - Mom was catholic, dad didn't attend mass, we kids went to catechism until junior high then we didn't attend mass much either. If this sounds like your house, your kids might turn out like me...better you save them now.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 03:40:21 PM · #402 |
I think Shannon's general point is that, if you had come to a "defining moment" when you wanted to figure out what you did believe ... odds are (not always), you would not have ever gravitated towards a religion that was completely removed from you, like Buddhism. For you, the decision would have been between atheist, catholic, or protestant ... nothing else was in your sphere of influence.
You chose between what you knew, which is what we all do. In some other part of the world, perhaps atheism is a completely foreign thought, so people choose between Paganism, Islamic, and Gozer the Destructor. Shannon has a good point (assuming I'm right). Shannon wants a set of rules to define what we're debating (ie ... all catholics go to Heaven, all Buddhists go to Hell), but I don't think it's as simple as that. This thread is smashing together 2 different arguments (1) Does a higher intelligence exist? and (2) Which religion is the true religion? I'm not sure it's valid to say, "well, there's 1000 religions in the world, so that proves there is no god".
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scalvert:
No. I don't make much of a distinction between a Catholic school and a madrasah. It's one thing to learn about another perspective, but it's a lot more difficult to distinguish story from fact when you've been taught the stories all your life from the same source where you gained most of your knowledge. |
Just to play devil's advocate, I went through the Catholic school system my whole life, from grade one through the end of high school. I was about as indoctrinated as they get. Look what they did to me. :-P
To be precise, when I was in school, we didn't really think much about our religious education. Yes, we were religiously educated specifically in the Catholic tradition, with compulsory religion class all the way through and compulsory mass every week (or was it every other week?) but we didn't think we were any different from the kids in public school. Maybe we thought we were a little smarter. We didn't constantly think about our Catholicism, or about religion and God, chanting scripture in a rapturous daze madrasah-style. We were just regular Canadian kids who did the stuff other kids did (sports (well, not me)), dances, horsing around, not doing homework, raisng the ire of the teachers... all that good stuff. I can't honestly say my Catholic education contributed to a more radical position, even though I was a very, VERY devout Catholic before age 18. |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 03:41:09 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scalvert:
No. I don't make much of a distinction between a Catholic school and a madrasah. It's one thing to learn about another perspective, but it's a lot more difficult to distinguish story from fact when you've been taught the stories all your life from the same source where you gained most of your knowledge. |
Just to play devil's advocate, I went through the Catholic school system my whole life, from grade one through the end of high school. I was about as indoctrinated as they get. Look what they did to me. :-P
To be precise, when I was in school, we didn't really think much about our religious education. Yes, we were religiously educated specifically in the Catholic tradition, with compulsory religion class all the way through and compulsory mass every week (or was it every other week?) but we didn't think we were any different from the kids in public school. Maybe we thought we were a little smarter. We didn't constantly think about our Catholicism, or about religion and God, chanting scripture in a rapturous daze madrasah-style. We were just regular Canadian kids who did the stuff other kids did (sports (well, not me)), dances, horsing around, not doing homework, raisng the ire of the teachers... all that good stuff. I can't honestly say my Catholic education contributed to a more radical position, even though I was a very, VERY devout Catholic before age 18. |
I had to leave for a while but this sounds similar to the Preacher's Kid situation. All of the chanting, recitations, rote learning lead to this 'devoutness', but it isn't really personal so it doesn't stick after leaving the environment. The preacher's kid acts in a certain way because he is 'supposed to act' that way...
Would you say that in some cases a "radical" religious upbringing might lead to more stringent rejection of that same tradition? ('Compulsory' is probably a more accurate word than 'radical') No doubt some of your classmates are devoutly religious in no small part b/c of their schooling. Interesting that Canadian kids do what American kids do (at least what I did in school). ;) Things have changed a bit... |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 03:45:42 PM · #404 |
Having been around a lot of preacher's kids ... I'd say this is the norm.
Originally posted by mpeters:
Would you say that in some cases a "radical" religious upbringing might lead to more stringent rejection of that same tradition? |
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 04:01:08 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by scalvert:
No. I don't make much of a distinction between a Catholic school and a madrasah. It's one thing to learn about another perspective, but it's a lot more difficult to distinguish story from fact when you've been taught the stories all your life from the same source where you gained most of your knowledge. |
Just to play devil's advocate, I went through the Catholic school system my whole life, from grade one through the end of high school. I was about as indoctrinated as they get. Look what they did to me. :-P
To be precise, when I was in school, we didn't really think much about our religious education. Yes, we were religiously educated specifically in the Catholic tradition, with compulsory religion class all the way through and compulsory mass every week (or was it every other week?) but we didn't think we were any different from the kids in public school. Maybe we thought we were a little smarter. We didn't constantly think about our Catholicism, or about religion and God, chanting scripture in a rapturous daze madrasah-style. We were just regular Canadian kids who did the stuff other kids did (sports (well, not me)), dances, horsing around, not doing homework, raisng the ire of the teachers... all that good stuff. I can't honestly say my Catholic education contributed to a more radical position, even though I was a very, VERY devout Catholic before age 18. |
I had to leave for a while but this sounds similar to the Preacher's Kid situation. All of the chanting, recitations, rote learning lead to this 'devoutness', but it isn't really personal so it doesn't stick after leaving the environment. The preacher's kid acts in a certain way because he is 'supposed to act' that way...
Would you say that in some cases a "radical" religious upbringing might lead to more stringent rejection of that same tradition? ('Compulsory' is probably a more accurate word than 'radical') No doubt some of your classmates are devoutly religious in no small part b/c of their schooling. Interesting that Canadian kids do what American kids do (at least what I did in school). ;) Things have changed a bit... |
I dated a girl who was the daughter of a Baptist minister. She was one wild girl. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 04:14:29 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
I had to leave for a while but this sounds similar to the Preacher's Kid situation. All of the chanting, recitations, rote learning lead to this 'devoutness', but it isn't really personal so it doesn't stick after leaving the environment. |
Oh it was personal baby. I thought "devout" related that my faith was a very personal, deeply abiding one. Perhaps there's a better word.
Originally posted by mpeters:
Would you say that in some cases a "radical" religious upbringing might lead to more stringent rejection of that same tradition? |
I would think so, but my upbringing was neither radical nor stringent. My parents, particularly my father, was a believer, and religion was important to him, but I was a much more devout Catholic than he. For example, mass was very important for me to keep for many years each Sunday, but him not so much. So you have the spectacle of a twelve year old kid going to mass alone, which I did for many years. Notwithstanding what I said about being a "normal" as opposed to a "radicalized" kid who didn't think about his faith moment by moment, I was a full and willing participant in my beliefs. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 04:37:04 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by Louis:
So you have the spectacle of a twelve year old kid going to mass alone, which I did for many years. |
So, for just how many years were you twelve? ;-) |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 05:02:40 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mpeters:
I had to leave for a while but this sounds similar to the Preacher's Kid situation. All of the chanting, recitations, rote learning lead to this 'devoutness', but it isn't really personal so it doesn't stick after leaving the environment. |
Oh it was personal baby. I thought "devout" related that my faith was a very personal, deeply abiding one. Perhaps there's a better word.
Originally posted by mpeters:
Would you say that in some cases a "radical" religious upbringing might lead to more stringent rejection of that same tradition? |
I would think so, but my upbringing was neither radical nor stringent. My parents, particularly my father, was a believer, and religion was important to him, but I was a much more devout Catholic than he. For example, mass was very important for me to keep for many years each Sunday, but him not so much. So you have the spectacle of a twelve year old kid going to mass alone, which I did for many years. Notwithstanding what I said about being a "normal" as opposed to a "radicalized" kid who didn't think about his faith moment by moment, I was a full and willing participant in my beliefs. |
My apologies-I made the wrong assumption.
Was there a time where you were required to go to mass, eventually leading to you choosing to go to mass, even if it meant going solo?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 05:09:34 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Louis:
So you have the spectacle of a twelve year old kid going to mass alone, which I did for many years. |
So, for just how many years were you twelve? ;-) |
Heh... I was trying to word that coherently and that was the best I could do. :-) |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 05:13:28 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Was there a time where you were required to go to mass, eventually leading to you choosing to go to mass, even if it meant going solo? |
Hey, every Catholic kid is required to go to mass at some point or other. :-) Every child is compelled to practice the articles of his or her faith at some point. As Dawkins says, there are no "Christian children" or "Muslim children", merely children of parents.
An interesting story though: when I was six, I disappeared for two hours and freaked my parents out. I had gone to church, since I knew it was always open to me. I sat there while preparation for mass ensued, then mass happened. Later, I walked home, completely unaware they had mobilized the community looking for me after I failed to come home from school. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 05:31:20 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Every child is compelled to practice the articles of his or her faith at some point. As Dawkins says, there are no "Christian children" or "Muslim children", merely children of parents. |
Uh oh. That is going to cause some problems.
I generally agree with Dawkins on this point, although I think his further rhetorical move of calling such religious indoctrination "child abuse" isn't really that helpful to the debate. (Wrong? Not necessarily. But unhelpful within the confines of a persuasive argument, nonetheless.)
Although, after watching this -- Jesus Camp - the description didn't seem that far off at all.
Message edited by author 2008-04-10 17:35:49.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 05:52:01 PM · #412 |
Since I've been ignored by the Atheists except for Matthew I assume it would be allright if I didn't post any further. Since you guys obviously can't take the heat that this Christian brings to the conversation without ridiculing and name calling I suggest you look inward and determine that you are not nice guys as has been stated by some. Good decent people are non-existent. We are all self seeking and self serving even when it appears otherwise. The only way to even have a chance to cure this you reject. I truly feel sorry for you as I'm sure you may well feel the same for me but most probably you just have scorn for me for trying to show you truth however bad the attempt was. Don't bother with any further ridiculing posts or claims of making me turn tail and run because I won't read them anyway. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 06:09:28 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Was there a time where you were required to go to mass, eventually leading to you choosing to go to mass, even if it meant going solo? |
Hey, every Catholic kid is required to go to mass at some point or other. :-) Every child is compelled to practice the articles of his or her faith at some point. As Dawkins says, there are no "Christian children" or "Muslim children", merely children of parents.
|
...until it becomes personal for the child--not just part of his/her upbringing. Being raised Christian doesn't a Christian make. Likewise Jewish, Muslim, etc. Calling it 'child abuse' is a whole other matter. What is a parent to do? Let the child make all the choices? Considering the source, the verbiage shouldn't be too surprising. Is it child abuse that I make my children brush their teeth and go to bed at 8? ;) They aren't all that into it, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 06:43:16 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Is it child abuse that I make my children brush their teeth and go to bed at 8? ;) They aren't all that into it, that's for sure. |
*Achoo slyly picks up the phone and starts dialing Child Protective Services....*
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 06:52:04 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Is it child abuse that I make my children brush their teeth and go to bed at 8? ;) They aren't all that into it, that's for sure. |
*Achoo slyly picks up the phone and starts dialing Child Protective Services....* |
I was speaking of my theoretical children... ;) |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 07:17:11 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by mpeters:
Was there a time where you were required to go to mass, eventually leading to you choosing to go to mass, even if it meant going solo? |
Hey, every Catholic kid is required to go to mass at some point or other. :-) Every child is compelled to practice the articles of his or her faith at some point. As Dawkins says, there are no "Christian children" or "Muslim children", merely children of parents.
|
...until it becomes personal for the child--not just part of his/her upbringing. Being raised Christian doesn't a Christian make. Likewise Jewish, Muslim, etc. Calling it 'child abuse' is a whole other matter. What is a parent to do? Let the child make all the choices? |
I think you illustrate the point well. The kid can't make an informed choice, but is merely indoctrinated. In a perfect world, kids wouldn't be allowed to go to church, for example, until they were considered to have the capacity to understand what it meant and what all the choices were.
Forcing your (hypothetical) kids to brush their teeth is not a good analogy in my view, because it makes no sense to teach them about tooth decay by making them experience it. There is no disputing that poor dental hygiene results in tooth decay, so it's not unreasonable to get your kids to take care of themselves. There is more than a little doubt about the reality of your eternal soul and other such matters. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 07:46:34 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Since I've been ignored by the Atheists except for Matthew I assume it would be allright if I didn't post any further. Since you guys obviously can't take the heat that this Christian brings to the conversation without ridiculing and name calling I suggest you look inward and determine that you are not nice guys as has been stated by some. Good decent people are non-existent. We are all self seeking and self serving even when it appears otherwise. The only way to even have a chance to cure this you reject. I truly feel sorry for you as I'm sure you may well feel the same for me but most probably you just have scorn for me for trying to show you truth however bad the attempt was. Don't bother with any further ridiculing posts or claims of making me turn tail and run because I won't read them anyway. Have a nice day. |
Taking your ball and going home again?
And this time with a big 'ol pouty lip. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 07:51:42 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think you illustrate the point well. The kid can't make an informed choice, but is merely indoctrinated. In a perfect world, kids wouldn't be allowed to go to church, for example, until they were considered to have the capacity to understand what it meant and what all the choices were. |
While this is quite consistent with your own view about things Louis, I think it may sound sorta crazy to others like myself. Attending church has far more benefits, even for kids, than simply "indoctrination" (a loaded word to begin with). Personally I'd want no part of that "perfect world" (but I'm sure you knew that already).
I'm not even sure I understand what "the capacity to understand what it meant" is talking about. Doctrine? Theism? Knowing Jesus loves you?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 08:06:39 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While this is quite consistent with your own view about things Louis, I think it may sound sorta crazy to others like myself. Attending church has far more benefits, even for kids, than simply "indoctrination" (a loaded word to begin with). Personally I'd want no part of that "perfect world" (but I'm sure you knew that already).
I'm not even sure I understand what "the capacity to understand what it meant" is talking about. Doctrine? Theism? Knowing Jesus loves you? |
Well, consider other, similar labels.
Would you use 'atheist child' ?
or 'republican child' ?
communist child ? a monetarist child ? secular humanist child ?
Or are those things that it would be silly as you wouldn't expect a 5 year old to have a well informed opinion or the capacity to understand what it meant ?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2008 08:14:29 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I think you illustrate the point well. The kid can't make an informed choice, but is merely indoctrinated. In a perfect world, kids wouldn't be allowed to go to church, for example, until they were considered to have the capacity to understand what it meant and what all the choices were.
|
If you are a parent, and you truly believe that salvation of one's soul depends on the belief or practice of your religion, then wouldn't you teach your child the same out of pure love for your child? I also think most parents start to teach their children many things that they don't have the full capacity to understand until later in life, not just religion. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 08:20:09 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
I think you illustrate the point well. The kid can't make an informed choice, but is merely indoctrinated. In a perfect world, kids wouldn't be allowed to go to church, for example, until they were considered to have the capacity to understand what it meant and what all the choices were. |
While this is quite consistent with your own view about things Louis, I think it may sound sorta crazy to others like myself. Attending church has far more benefits, even for kids, than simply "indoctrination" (a loaded word to begin with). Personally I'd want no part of that "perfect world" (but I'm sure you knew that already).
I'm not even sure I understand what "the capacity to understand what it meant" is talking about. Doctrine? Theism? Knowing Jesus loves you? |
Gordon responded with exactly my point. I don't think it's particularly crazy to suggest that children are ill-informed about what it means to be a Christian (to take the most immediate example) by mere virtue of the fact that they are children.
If I ask you what it means to you to be Christian, I expect to hear things about your faith and your relationship with God and your interpretations of the Bible and so on, and I would also think you would talk about being Christian in your community, service to it, fellowship with like-minded people, etc. I wouldn't expect to hear anything of the sort from a five year old, or even a ten year old. I'm sure the older child might echo the elementary sentiments of the parent well, but independant thought may be another story.
As for the simple example of "Jesus loves you", well, as I mentioned, simply telling your child that Jesus exists and loves him says nothing about the reality of that statement. I was advocating for allowing the child to make such important determinations for him/herself when they are intellectually able to do so, and not before. I don't have any illusions that it would ever happen, don't worry. I don't mind appearing to be a fringe character when it's something so important. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 08:23:28 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
If you are a parent, and you truly believe that salvation of one's soul depends on the belief or practice of your religion, then wouldn't you teach your child the same out of pure love for your child? |
Sure, I expect that to be the motivation, absolutely. I don't happen to think it's factually correct, and I believe there to be other, more immediate consequences to such behaviour. That's all. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 10:33:06 PM · #423 |
Well, I'm not arguing that a child has a lesser understanding than an adult. Still, I was baptized when I was six and I knew what I was doing. Certainly it was more simple than my understanding now, but that should be expected.
Anyway, I pretty well agree with trevy. I'm taking my kids to church because I love them and view it as one of the most foundational things I can instill in them. I know you disagree, but that's fine. To each their own. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 10:50:37 PM · #424 |
I'm often amazed at what our three year old understands, and not just Christian things. Sure, he may not understand the doctrine of the trinity for example but the basic message of Christ is simple, understandable even by him.
Obviously we can banter round and round(I'm not much into arguementdebate-just ask my wife) but it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion. I still enjoy following along and applaud everyone's civility. |
|
|
|
04/10/2008 11:11:14 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by hopper:
This thread is smashing together 2 different arguments (1) Does a higher intelligence exist? and (2) Which religion is the true religion? I'm not sure it's valid to say, "well, there's 1000 religions in the world, so that proves there is no god".
|
I don't recall that argument being made but you're right that would be a non sequitur, if it was presented. What has been argued many times, and still hasn't been answered from what I've seen, is how does one choose which of the thousands of religions out there is the right one? At the very least shouldn't it take you a life time to examine each one before claiming one to be truth?
Earlier it was mentioned that there seems to be a correlation between what you believe in and what the people around you believed in. If that's true, what does it say? |
|
