|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 29, 2009 01:51 PM |
|
|
See. You don't want parents to marry their children and you don't want parents to pick the profession for their children.
But not only do you have no problems with parents picking the religion of their children, you defend that as being their right and something like freedom of thought and every try to protect childrem from their parents deciding about their religion being fascist and thought police.
You know, Mytical, that is at least illogical and inconsistent. It's more than that, but since I'm polite and since in this case it's easy to see that you simply have no grounds to reasonably argue upon, I'm not going to deepen that.
It's sad, though. A couple posts before you argued this way:
Quote:
Now I know this is going to be a bit unpopular, but I do not think that a religion (any religion even Satanism) should be confined by special laws that do not apply to everybody else and every other religion. Nor do I advocate religions having special privliges that ordinary people do not. A religon must be able to function within the laws for EVERYBODY, or it should be made illegal and shut down.
If that's your opinion - then why do you concede PARENTS the right to determine the RELIGIOUS "life" of their children, when you don't concede it in other areas like profession-picking, marriage and so on?
What makes religion different? What makes it different from politics? Why can someone make his children become member of the communist party age 4 and teach them that they must overcome the exploiters one day when you can do the same in religion?
No answers to simple questions, which is telling. Telling is, of course, when suddenly the general word husks start flying. Yes, we prefer personal freedom over fascist regimes and we don't need a thought police. That's true for children as well, I think. THEY don't need that either.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 02:09 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 14:12, 29 Jun 2009.
|
Actually where did I say that I am against aranged marriages, or parents trying to get their children into a certain profession? Though I might not personally do it, I relise that cultures do and who am I to tell them they can't?
To me, you are advocating 'brainwashing' people into believing ONLY what you think. But that is getting a bit too personal.
And what makes religion different from Politics? If you limit parents rights to teach religion, then politics should also. Oh and anything anybody disagrees on .. oh wait that means we can't think anything at all.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 03:42 PM |
|
|
Ah. So now you are advocating the right for parents to brainwash their children into everything they deem fit, while at the same time you are strongly against everything that may impede that right because that would be brainwashing.
Moreover, "teaching" in connection with religion is a rather overstated term.
But let's get a bit more detail and see where exactly things are going wrong. "Teaching" Religion has at least two parts:
1) telling the (basic) lore of a religion; I don't think there is anything wrong with telling a child the basic lore of a specific religion, even if only the lore of this religion is told. That is, informig a child about the fact that they - the parents - believe this and that and believe that this and that happened.
2) "introducing" a child into a certain "church" (I use this word in a very loosely sense) of said religion as in making it part of it.
2 is the problem, obviously, because becoming a member of a certain church will be connected with duties, with a certain behavior, with moral standards, with a certain attitude against other religions and churches and so on. It's akin to racism, in that those who really do that (which means those parents who find it important) don't want their children to have contact with members not only of other religions but not even of other churches.
Children are forced to make a difference between people depending on what those people "believe". Why? Doesn't make any sense.
So, keeping straight on topic, there IS a point where we should draw a line. IF we ever want to have peace in this world, IF we want people to stop bashing in their skulls collectively, we must draw the line at indoctrinating children with "religious racism". And this is not only a problem with the Islam. It's a problem with the fundamentalist Jews and the fundamentalist Christians as well.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 05:05 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 17:08, 29 Jun 2009.
|
I am advocating free thought, where people can believe what they want to believe. You seem to be advocating that everybody should just blindly follow what you believe is right, without much options. What you seem to see as brainwashing, simply taking the children to a 'church' and showing them what you believe, is not brainwashing. We are arguing in circles yet again...
Religions are not the problem. The people in the religion, like anything else in the world, are the problem. However, if you limit their rights, other rights should be limited also..and if those are, then others should be...and soon the only thing we can do is say (and think) A, An, and The..and maybe not even that.
____________
Message received.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 05:17 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:18, 29 Jun 2009.
|
I agree with Mytical. Most children should have freedom to be taught stuff. What you imply, JJ, would be that children shouldn't be taught many things simply because they are children (or whatever, like "can't think for themselves"). This is a problem because if you don't teach the children anything they'll never grow up also
Children with autism don't like social things, so you shouldn't teach them that right? Or are you trying to brainwash them into being social even if they don't want it or "can't think for themselves to choose that"? The PROBLEM is that a children can't "grow up" with lack of information. If you refuse to teach children X because they aren't grown-ups yet to choose, they can't grow up.
It is like a circular problem. To grow up, they need to be taught. To be taught without brainwashing, they need to be grown ups. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 06:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree with Mytical. Most children should have freedom to be taught stuff.
Ok. Simple question:
If a 4-year-old is made member of some "Church of the Holy Something", what exactly will that child be "taught" by whom and in which way is this a freedom?
By the way, Death, I consider this sentence of yours as extremely demagogic.
Not to mention that Mytical's statement to advocate freedom of thought is obviously limited to adults.
It's joke, if you say something like I only want to allow what I find right, when the only thing I'm saying is that there should a line be drawn in the recruitmentof children by churches vis their parents. THat you think that would somehow be inhibiting freedom of thought is an indication of how influenced you are by the BS religious "leaders" and churches are feeding people with.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 06:47 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:48, 29 Jun 2009.
|
You didn't get my point. If you don't teach them ANYTHING, they will never grow up. On the other hand, to teach them without brainwashing, they need to be grown ups... it's circular reasoning.
So then the question: who decides WHAT, if not the parents? Who decides what isn't brainwashing and what is brainwashing?
Are you saying kids aren't allowed to participate in cultural or religious "stuff" because they're kids? So they should stay at home until they are teenagers or something? School is also part of social culture, so let's get rid of that too. (I know that wasn't your point, but I don't know, where you draw the line)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2009 07:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You didn't get my point. If you don't teach them ANYTHING, they will never grow up. On the other hand, to teach them without brainwashing, they need to be grown ups... it's circular reasoning.
Death, I DID get your point. That's why I asked
Quote:
If a 4-year-old is made member of some "Church of the Holy Something", what exactly will that child be "taught" by whom and in which way is this a freedom?
because your point is wrong. (you didn't answer the question, by the way.)
Because the question is not THAT children are taught something, it's WHAT they are taught and HOW they are taught.
Teaching children methods to discern truth from lie, rhetorics, don't believe what you are told just because you are told and so on will help prohibting a person being brain-washed. Teaching a person to believe in authorities, to obey unquestioning, to do things you don't understand because you are told so, will not teach anything at all except obeying.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 12:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Teaching children methods to discern truth from lie, rhetorics, don't believe what you are told just because you are told and so on will help prohibting a person being brain-washed. Teaching a person to believe in authorities, to obey unquestioning, to do things you don't understand because you are told so, will not teach anything at all except obeying.
So children should not respect their parents, aka "authorities" either? What about some cultures who need respect for certain people (that's their culture for instance)? I think this is what Mytical said by freedom.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:02 AM |
|
|
You still didn't answer my question, so why should I answer yours?
To remind you: I asked what a 4- or 6-year-old will actually be taught when they become a member of some Church of the Holy Something, by whom and how? I could further ask, in which way will that help the child to become a resposible grown-up, able to make responsible decisions, with an open mind, tolerant and unbiassed, peace-loving and creative...
And for your question, I wrote that they should be taught not to believe IN authorities and not to obey UNQUESTIONINGLY, and if you thing about it, adolescence is usually a time when halfway normal children will rebel against parents and authorities, even if they are on good terms with their parents.
You don't think, it's all so bad?
Maybe you'll like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps and the site
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
Or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell and the site
http://www.liberty.edu/
Or this:
http://www.ahumbleplea.com/
Or maybe this:
http://www.michaelbray.radicalfringe.org/
Or this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson and the site
http://www.patrobertson.com/
I mean, what the HELL. I didn't even mention Scientology. Do you really want ro see young children under the influence of those people? Become members of their "Churches"? Listen to their sermons? What do you think, will they teach them? Love and understanding? Tolerance? Yeah, I bet.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:20 AM |
|
|
Starting another thread for this, then copying and posting these posts. This is a bit too far off topic.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:26 AM |
|
|
|
It is? I thought it was about drawing a line.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:27 AM |
|
|
Yet we havn't been talking about WHERE to draw a line, but our opinions on what is and isn't brainwashing (for the most part).
____________
Message received.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:31 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:40, 30 Jun 2009.
|
Perhaps you are correct though, will send to get the other thread deleted.
Now to answer your question. Morality? Responsibility? How to read? None of this ringing a bell? While almost everything CAN be taugt somehow else, when done properly religion can be a very good thing. Am I saying that religion is perfect? Far from it. Lets flip this bird.
People get together and pass a new law (for whatever reason). This new law states that not only can people NOT believe anything you(Jollyjoker, whatever your real world name is)believe in, but have to think exactly the opposit BY LAW. IE if you 'believe' (yes I know you are going to argue semantics but meh) in 'gravity' then you now have to think and believe that what goes down must go up, and the like. Now not only this, but every child has to learn this, and believe it to be true. How would YOU react?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 09:04 AM |
|
|
?
The gist of my opinion was, that children should not be subject to membership of religious organisations or "churches". A clear line to be drawn between religious indoctrination as done within a religious organisation and the simple information about religion as such, the same way as with politics - while you may learn about politics, membership of a political party is possible only from a certain age onwards.
I gave reasons for that which was when the discussion started.
However, the start of it was raising-up and disciplining of children and whether society can tell parents how to raise their children, and that's when I answered "yes" and named this.
Religiously fundamental parents will raise their children in the spirit of their fundamental views which involves making their children fine examples of members of their personal cult, I don't think we disagree here.
My opinion is that society has to protect the children - and ultimately ITSELF - from all kinds of extremism, especially that of the religious fanatics.
Since "real" believers think that THEIRS is the only right way, they necessarily believe that all the others are lost in error and damnation which isn't all too helpful in creating peace and tolerance as history shows.
Allowing freedom of religion is all fine and well, but that is dangerously near to allow freedom of racism (as in dividing people into good and bad, superior and inferior and so on), and while a really free society may allow complete freedom of opinion and so on, it is counter-productive, if children are firmly indoctrinated with fundamental-fanatical religious views, since many will simply follow their indoctrination, ad infinitum.
That's why I think, that there has to be drawn a line. I mean, don't you see, that while racism is "banned" and racial tolerance becomes more pronounced from generation to generation, this is different with religion. RELIGIOUS "racism" is not only allowed, it's protected as well - every preacher can tell his community that the unbelievers are damned and will burn in hell. That GAYS will, and so on.
In other words, under the protective umbrella of "religious freedom" everything, that would be considered loathsome, evil, even unconstitutional, is allowed. And under the same umbrella it is allowed for adults to poison children with this venom.
I repeat, it seems to be about time to draw a line here somewhere.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 09:12 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People get together and pass a new law (for whatever reason). This new law states that not only can people NOT believe anything you(Jollyjoker, whatever your real world name is)believe in, but have to think exactly the opposit BY LAW. IE if you 'believe' (yes I know you are going to argue semantics but meh) in 'gravity' then you now have to think and believe that what goes down must go up, and the like. Now not only this, but every child has to learn this, and believe it to be true. How would YOU react?
I don't see your point. I don't want to order people to believe a certain something. What I don't want is, if we keep to your example, that people who believe in WHATEVER won't teach their children, that there is only WHATEVER and everyone not believing in WHATEVER will suffer ETERNAL PAIN and is at best ignorant, but most likely damned, evil, depraved and LOST. Infidel. Subhuman.
See my last post.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 09:27 AM |
|
|
Actually that is exactly what you are saying. You are 'deciding' what is to be taught to 'whom', and under what conditions. Sounds very much like it to me. ((Just for the record teaching and thinking racial discriminatory thoughts IS NOT illegal...))
The line is simple and clear to me. If it does not break the current laws of a culture, there should not be 'special' laws for any group of people. IE no "You can't take your child to your church (or whatever it is called ) until they are x years old." or if there is then a "You MUST take your child to churches (or whatever) when they are X years old to teach them ALL possibilities." law is right behind it..and I wouldn't even like that.
Whatever happened to respecting others cultures and beliefs?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 10:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually that is exactly what you are saying. You are 'deciding' what is to be taught to 'whom', and under what conditions. Sounds very much like it to me. ((Just for the record teaching and thinking racial discriminatory thoughts IS NOT illegal...))
The line is simple and clear to me. If it does not break the current laws of a culture, there should not be 'special' laws for any group of people. IE no "You can't take your child to your church (or whatever it is called ) until they are x years old." or if there is then a "You MUST take your child to churches (or whatever) when they are X years old to teach them ALL possibilities." law is right behind it..and I wouldn't even like that.
Whatever happened to respecting others cultures and beliefs?
Obviously there ARE things that parents CANNOT do with their children or teach their children. For example, parents who give their children lessons in the realities of the sex life of adults will have a difficult time it that is to be known - who decided THAT then? Which means, there ARE lines drawn already, and any Satanic cult out there starting the "religious freedom" sermon after involving children in anything pornografic will have difficulties out there - but probably only because they are a minority.
Moreover, every law is "special" in some way. There would be nothing out of the ordinary with laws protecting children from religious fanatism - mental rape is still rape, and rape is forbidden.
What really pisses me off here is your insisting on putting words into my mouth, on interpreting things I say every which way, on not addressing the actual points made, on pointing out that it's not illegal to teach discriminatory racial thoughts when the constitution says that there must not be any discrimination of that sort, and on generally just throwing in hackneyed phrases like "whatever happened to respecting others cultures and beliefs". Yeah, well, what HAPPENED to it? What happened to respecting the private life of adults? Isn't AIDS the bane not only of gays but of people who tolerate them? And don't we have to protect the right of each and every religiously fanatical nutcase to burn that sacred truth into the mind of every person they get hold of, because we must respect other cultures and beliefs? Is hateful nonsense in the name of some god or another less than hateful nonsense?
Why should we "respect" a cultural heritage based on hateful nonsense? Should we "respect" anti-semitism then - that one has a very broad cultural heritage?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 10:23 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:35, 30 Jun 2009.
|
Ok. First off, you were the one who started putting words in peoples mouth, but lets get beyond that. Discrimination for a place of work (or anything, like schools, that is government run) IS illegal, thinking racial thoughts and teaching those same to their child IS NOT. Hope that clears that up. (*sigh* let me go back and make sure I am covering all your points..)
Quote:
Obviously there ARE things that parents CANNOT do with their children or teach their children. For example, parents who give their children lessons in the realities of the sex life of adults will have a difficult time it that is to be known - who decided THAT then?
If you are talking molestation, covered under laws which I specifically stated everybody (religious or not) should be bound by. If you are talking 'the birds and the bees' it IS a parents job to do so. Fail to see the point.
Quote:
Moreover, every law is "special" in some way. There would be nothing out of the ordinary with laws protecting children from religious fanatism - mental rape is still rape, and rape is forbidden.
Here we go again. Just because it is not something YOU believe in, or have some issue with, does not make it 'mental rape'. I doubt I will ever get you to see this however.
Quote:
What really pisses me off here is your insisting on putting words into my mouth, on interpreting things I say every which way, on not addressing the actual points made, on pointing out that it's not illegal to teach discriminatory racial thoughts when the constitution says that there must not be any discrimination of that sort, and on generally just throwing in hackneyed phrases like "whatever happened to respecting others cultures and beliefs". Yeah, well, what HAPPENED to it? What happened to respecting the private life of adults? Isn't AIDS the bane not only of gays but of people who tolerate them? And don't we have to protect the right of each and every religiously fanatical nutcase to burn that sacred truth into the mind of every person they get hold of, because we must respect other cultures and beliefs? Is hateful nonsense in the name of some god or another less than hateful nonsense?
You talk about me throwing up hackneyed phrases and then do the same. Every point you make I try my best to cover, I am only human. Respecting the private life of adults..I am the one advocating respecting that right ... *is confused*. Aids the bane of gays and people who tolerate them. Afraid you are going to have to explain what that has to do with this. *is confused*. Protect the rights of religous people? Absolutely as long as they are within the LAWS (*plays broken record*). Is the hateful nonsense in the name of some god or another less then hateful nonsense? Is the hateful nonsense against some religions less then hateful nonsense?
Quote:
Why should we "respect" a cultural heritage based on hateful nonsense? Should we "respect" anti-semitism then - that one has a very broad cultural heritage?
You don't have to think like they do, or even LIKE how they think to respect their RIGHT to think it.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 11:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously there ARE things...... who decided THAT then?
If you are talking molestation, covered under laws which I specifically stated everybody (religious or not) should be bound by. If you are talking 'the birds and the bees' it IS a parents job to do so. Fail to see the point.
You should have read a little further. Imagine some mildly satanic cult. Parents are taking their children with them to their masses, involving wild fornications, with the children NOT taking part in, but only watching, since coming-of-age and a specific ritual is necessary to become "full" member of the community and being allowed to actively take part...
Quote:
Quote:
Moreover, every law is "special" in some way. There would be nothing out of the ordinary with laws protecting children from religious fanatism - mental rape is still rape, and rape is forbidden.
Here we go again. Just because it is not something YOU believe in, or have some issue with, does not make it 'mental rape'. I doubt I will ever get you to see this however.
It's not me who believes in it. It's something that is well-known and written about, in fact, everyone is nodding when it comes to islamic fundamentalists. In fact it's you who should try and read a bit more about the human mind and how easily the young mind is influenced - which is the actual reason why they try to get to the children and will fight for their right to - if they wouldn't, most religious organizations would just die from lack of members.
Quote:
Quote:
What really pisses me off here....... Is hateful nonsense in the name of some god or another less than hateful nonsense?
You talk about me throwing up hackneyed phrases and then do the same. Every point you make I try my best to cover, I am only human. Respecting the private life of adults..I am the one advocating respecting that right ... *is confused*. Aids the bane of gays and people who tolerate them. Afraid you are going to have to explain what that has to do with this. *is confused*. Protect the rights of religous people? Absolutely as long as they are within the LAWS (*plays broken record*). Is the hateful nonsense in the name of some god or another less then hateful nonsense? Is the hateful nonsense against some religions less then hateful nonsense?
Mytical:
1) You should take a look at the links I have in one of my recent posts. You will then see, that the "Aids is the bane of gays and people who tolerate them" is the sermon of fundamental, influential preachers and certain politicians - and that's only part of their loathsome message - or even doings: Fire-bombings of abortion hospitals, for example.
2) Laws are not and have not been absolute. They are made depending on the "zeitgeist" - take the voting right for women. Did I mention that there are those who are still opposed to that one, even women. Did I mention that in the links I gave you'll find thoughts about the role of women as well.
In any case, laws are made as they are deemed fit. What was legal today may be illegal tommorow and vice versa, so I fail to see your point. Laws are to help to make things better - therefore they always change.
Quote:
Quote:
Why should we "respect" a cultural heritage based on hateful nonsense? Should we "respect" anti-semitism then - that one has a very broad cultural heritage?
You don't have to think like they do, or even LIKE how they think to respect their RIGHT to think it.
Oh, I respect their right to THINK it alright. I do even respect their right to discuss them with other adults. It's the right to TEACH them to CHILDREN as the only truth, god's will, and the way to everlasting life I don't concede to them, in case you hadn't noticed.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
