|
| Thread: Teaching religon: Heritage of hostility? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted July 07, 2009 08:23 PM |
|
|
@Mytical
Regarding the parts of my earlier post with which you disagreed:
I don't really understand the relevance of quoting Bible passages to the topic of teaching religion. Certainly not in the way they have been utilized in this thread so far.
Regarding my perception that religion is obselete, let me clarify. I don't mean that it is meaningless. Clearly it is not. It influences peoples' lives; it drives world events. It is thus important and, as I made very clear, it needs to be taught to children. However, when I say that it is obselete, I mean the role that it played in our societal evolution is no longer useful. Human society has developed to a point where morals/values can exist without it. And science long ago replaced it as a mechanism for the acquisition of knowledge. Religion is important to people, but it is no longer necessary for the survival of our species. Of course, the human condition has escaped to a large extent the grip of natural selection, and so there has been no real drive to discard that which really no longer provides any real advantage for our ability to thrive, and in some cases can actually be harmful.
Regarding children following the religion of their parents: I agree this is becoming less common - when those children become adults. The demographics of religion in this country are slowly changing. The country is gradually becoming less religious. However, most children, while their children, subscribe to whatever religion their parents follow. I doubt there are many Christian parents who have a 5 year old child who considers himself a Muslim.
If those are the only points on which we disagree, then I consider us in pretty good agreement on this topic.
@JJ
I fail to see from your response to my post how you disagree with me. And I don't really disagree with anything you wrote, either.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I doubt there are many Christian parents who have a 5 year old child who considers himself a Muslim.
Sorry for the quote but this was just too fun to point. We saw black people having a white son so...well, he died.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 08:45 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
You are wrong with the Bible. (Didn't think I would say that)
For your convenience I bold-printed the kew words for you. If you read the passage, Moses is explicitely referring to the first passage at the end of the second, when he's pissed that the Israelites didn't kill the non-virgin women.
For Christians and Rome I didn't say that they started a riot or even TRIED to incite a riot.
But they preached love thy neighbour and so on, and slaves were neighbours as well.
In any case the reason for the - not continous - persecutions were not the fact that they wouldn't worship a certain god. If anything, they were persecuted - among others - NOT because they said their god was the right one and they worshipped him, but ran around and preached that the others were the WRONG ones - which is a difference and has a very clear political dimension.
@ Corribus
We don't disagree in that point? Ah, ok, in that case I take it that you was trying to be diplomatic and I've misunderstood the thing about what exactly you mean, when you say that religion has outlived its usefulness. 
Yes, in that case we agree completely.
|
|
xerdux
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 09:13 PM |
|
|
I still think its wrong to the parents to raise the child religiously.
The child should be able to choose, not be "forced" to believe! A small child cannot choose to be religios or not - he is influenced by his parents.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 09:14 PM |
|
|
@xerox: let's take out all mandatory classes then. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 10:48 PM |
|
|
Elodin:
None of that shows how atheism is a state religion. Just because something is anti-Christian doesn't mean that it's atheist. Also, there is the impossibility of turning a non-religion (atheism) into a state religion. "Anti-theism as a state policy" and "atheism as a state religion" are two different things. The first is possible - the second isn't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:13, 07 Jul 2009.
|
@JJ
Actually Christians went around preaching that Jesus is Lord, not saying "You are wrong." Did they ever say other gods were false? Yep but that was not primarily what they preached.
Yes, I was wrong, the events are related. Here is my analysis of the situation.
Baal-peor is is referring to a god that the Moabites worshipped. He is one of the gods the Israelites when "whoring after." That's a reference to the orgies the pagans had as part of their "worship."
In the Num 25 passage while the people were "weeping before the door of the Tabernacle" (repenting) a man brought a Midianite woman into the Tabernacle (pace of worship that housed the Ark of the Covenant) to have sex with her .
The Jew and Midianite woman were slain by a spear while they were having sex. You will note that he brought the woman "unto his brethren" so there was going to be a pagan sex ritual in the Tabernacle. A priest saw what was going on, went in the Tabernacle and slew them with a spear while they were having sex in th sacred place.
The Midianite had been among the Moabites but the Midianites and Moabite were different nationalities. Midian was a nation, as was Moab. The Midianite woman was "royalty" according to the below verse.
Num 25:14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.
The Moabites and Midianites were allies. The Midianites were more of a nomadic people whereas the Moabites had more agricultural..
The Midianites also worshiped Baal-peor. They acted in one accord when they hired the pagan diviner Baalam to "curse" Israel for example (although Baalam backed out or the deal.) However, Baalam told them how they could get Israel to fall.
Num 22:7 And the elders of Moab and the elders of Midian departed with the rewards of divination in their hand; and they came unto Balaam, and spake unto him the words of Balak.
So Midian conspired with Moab to ensnare the Jews in their false religion.
Num 25:18 For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor's sake
Then in chapter 31 we see the Midianites being judged for their part in the conspiracy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 07:57 AM |
|
|
@ Elodin
Yes.
And a perfect example of what I said: That intolerance against other religions was even a commandment and that the Jews fought wars on behalf of their god against other people with other gods, taking each victory as proof of their god's claims.
You said that were not the case and I should stop telling lies about the Jews.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:27 AM |
|
|
Again, I will ask my questions. Why should we disbelieve one person's claim that they are following God's 'Ultimate Truth' (to kill, harm, etc) and then believe another person who claims the same thing (to spread the word of peace and love)?. I know it is not exactly on the topic of teaching, and I do have some on topic comments.
Don't get me wrong. I believe that Christianity is as responsible for the Crusades (et al), as Athiest/Anti-Theism is for the "250 million people killed in the last 100 years" ie .. not at all. However, I am against ANY type of double standard. If you try to claim religion guilt free, then don't hold something else to a different standard. Either the person/people are responsible or the 'belief' system is. For me the person/people are responsible period. In these cases a few 'leaders' wanted to spread their influence and power and any 'excuse' would do. They didn't care who they hurt, or who was innocent.
Now back to the topic of teaching. While I am fully for a parents right to teach their children religion, I do not think any PUBLIC school should teach religion at all. It is too personal a thing, to just cobble everything together. Now I would be all for something like a "Tolerance" class or something, but don't feel it is mandatory.
In one light JollyJoker is correct. Nobody should be 'force fed' anything, but I don't believe for the most part (there are of course exceptions) that this is what happens. Most 'average' people show their children their beliefs and let them make their own decision. Unfortunately it is not the 'average' person people see or hear about.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 08:49 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:12, 08 Jul 2009.
|
@JJ
Here is exactly what you said: "If you read the OT - which is an edited history of the Jewish people - you can read there that intolerance against other religions is a COMMANDMENT of that one and only god."
Now, as I said before, it was illegal to be a different religion within the boundaries of Israel. But the the Jews did not go around the world conquering other nations because they were a different religion. They had peaceful relations with surrounding nations unless the nations acted against them. The Jews had lots of trade treaties and such with the other nations so it is quite obveious that they tolerated other religions outside their borders.
Also, as I said before, God at times used Israel to judge surrounding natinos and surrounding natinos to judge Israel.
The two chapters in question were about two nations conspiring to trick Israel and they were judged for their trickery in leading Israel astray.
Edit: Oh, here's exactly what I said. A bit different from your statment.
"It is true that only Judaism was allowed within the borders of Israel, However, your implication that the Jews conducted wars with other nations because they didn't believe in the one true God is a very much untrue. God never said "Go to war with such and such because they don't worship me." Please stop telling untrue things about Jews."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 09:33 AM |
|
|
Mytical, I think that you are wrong in two respects here.
1) You underestimate the power of "words" and "ideas". If people fight for wealth, land and power they will go only so far: dead men can't spend gold. If people fight for an idea in which they believe, they don't fight for themselves anymore and will be prepared to die for it. Examples are legion: Independence War of the Bristish Colonies that are now the US; France after their revolution 220 years ago, drafting their soldiers from the people: Levee en masse! 100 years war, 30-years war, Russiam Revolution. There may always be people who MISUSE or ABUSE an idea for their personal gain, but that doesn't stop an idea from fascinating people like moths by a flame.
Worse: there are leaders who actually believe in their ideas, that are always based on others. Lenin and Hitler were BELIEVERS in IDEAS.
Of course there are ideas more dangerous than other ones. "All men are created equal" doesn't sound dangerous, however, it's as dangerous as a burning torch before a nound of dry wood, if your society involves slavery. Because the idea needs a solution: a) the idea is considered wrong and us abolished (fights programmed); b) The idea is considered right and slavery is abolished (fights programmed); c) (a soecial sort of) slaves are not considered "men" - a counter-idea if you want to (and you could be sure that this ain't the last word on that issue).
In short, every ABSOLUTE idea, that is, an idea that claims to be universally valid is dangerous (which doesn't mean it's bad necessarily - progress involves danger, obviously).
Without the respective ideas the majority of wars wouldn't have been fought. It's not an EITHER it's the people OR a belief system, it's BOTH.
2) You say that the "average" people are not force-feeding their children with religion or religious "truths". I'm not sure whether that's true in a global sense, but let's say it IS true. The average people don't go and kill people either, still no one says that's just a minority or fringe problem. The reason is, if something is deemed important enough, action will be taken, whether a majority or a minority is affected: if a certain minority type of house is likely to crumble, you don't say, doesn't matter, how many can there be, what can happen as a worst case? A million dead? Well, the average person won't be affected, so who cares?
So, I don't think "average", plays a role here: it seems to be a question of SEVERITY. If people, young people, children, youths (remember the discussion about the boy fleeing his chemo? Or people who don't want a blood transfer?), are prepared to die because a religious belief is forbidding them to live, then there is something WRONG with that belief. I wouldn't have a problem with an old person doing this - leaving nature its course - so-to-speak, but if children or youths are doing that, it's plain madness: if that was exemplary behaviour for the human race we'd probably long gone and that belief had never developed.
The worst thing is, that I would call all this superstition, not belief. What nonsensical properties do people atttribute their god and the world they live in with? You might think we have been grown out of it, but no. Force-feeding that kind of stuff to unsuspecting children is nothing less than a crime.
@ Elodin
You are putting words into my mouth. You quote me bold print, "intolerance against other religions is a commandment", and then go on denying it by saying they didn't move around the world to conquer other countries. No, they didn't. But within their borders nothing else was allowed, intolerance as a commandment. But, as you said, god used them to smash other people (who obviously did not worship him) and vice versa - quite obviously excusing and explaining away the fact that the Israelites with their oh so powerful one and obly god had a stroke of bad luck in their relation with others with some faulty behaviour that made god penalize them, which is pretty easy to see in hindsight.
However, the reasoning for the quoted incident in the Bible is still wrong. If you prepare what is yours with some poison, then put it on display, and someone cannot resist to take it, even though ther god has forbidden that, then the poisoner may be guilty to try and tempt the thief, but I thought that was what life, the devil and temptation was all about. You might say, that they simply failed the test, as they failed it when they built the golden idol to dance around, just because Moses was away a couple of days.
They DID recruit, by taking the virgin women of that people, by the way. However, since THEIR monotheistic religion is elitist (the CHOSEN people), it's obvious they don't run around and try to convert everyone - that would be against the basic idea of being superior because being chosen.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 10:13, 08 Jul 2009.
|
JollyJoker
Words and ideas are powerful, I fully understand that. However, the ones going afte the power, wealth, etc are usually NOT the ones fighting. They find a common 'idea' and convince others to do their dirty work. It doesn't matter if that idea is freedom, racial, political (Ie their policy of killing baby wombats is so wrong we must go in and teach them a lesson), or what. Religion is just another 'excuse', and if it never exsisted another would have been found and used.
Also do not forget that some of these ideas and words are positive. Like 'Love thy Neighbor'.
Lets address the point that some ideas are more dangerous then others. Equality is a 'dangerous' idea. Somebody living on the streets life IS of equal value to somebody living in a mansion, but lets admit it..the person in the Mansion has a much easier life which is far from equal. Women are physically weaker then men, and hardly equal in that respect..does that mean we should teach people that women are inferior to men? Just because an idea has potential for danger doesn't mean it should be not taught. After all that means that we should bury anything to do with Atomic energy as it has POTENTIAL to be dangerous. (And vehicles, and...)
Now as for average. The average temperature is not 43 (Degrees) celsius for the whole world, but there are deserts..so everybody should gear for survival in the desert?
There are exceptions both good and bad to everything, it is the way of life. In these cases, however, the average gets drowned out by the extreames.
Edit : And just out of curiosity how does somebody not taking a blood transfusion impact anybody's life but the person doing so? Somebody smart once said "Clean your own yard before worrying if the neighbor's yard is dirty." Worry about what you do and let people do what they want unless it DIRECTLY impacts you.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:17 AM |
|
|
@ Mytical:
About dangerous ideas, I highlighted something in bold print you seem to have missed.
Anyway, I disagree that Love Thy Neighbour is a good idea because it's a COMMAND and therefore it's a paradox. It's no accident that you have no problems imagining the missionaries with their escorts, putting people their swords to the neck, saying: "Will you now accept to love thy neighbour and that god loves you?" Anxious nodding.
You cannot COMMAND someone to be positive about things - it must come from the heart, from inner conviction.
A better idea is "TRY to take example from me (us) and meet your neighbours with goodwill and an open mind. That may grow to liking, friendship and love."
Teaching a command that is impossible to fulfill without the inner conviction that comes from deep understanding, leads invariably to a feeling of failure and guilt. If that feeling is common to a whole people that people will tend to try and blame someone else: it can't be the idea which is pure good, it can't be us, since we believe, so it must be the godless pagans.
Edit: You would defend the idea that CHILDREN reject a blood transfusion due to what would be called their religious belief?
Edit 2: Force feeding children a religion is an extreme that doesn't happen, as a murder doesn't just "happen" - like an earthquake, for example (which is still catered for today, when building towers in Japan, for example).
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:35 AM |
|
|
While there maybe exceptions in the world, what you fear is not happening now. I would be one of the first to stand up against anybody (and not just religion but political, etc) who tried to force a philosophy in such a way. Heck, anybody in a religion who has ever tried to tell me "Mine is the only way, you will believe my way." I've just laughed in their face and walked away. Telling somebody about your belief is a LOT different then forcing them to obey.
For instance, Elodin believes in his religion, and I know a lot might think he 'forces' his views on others, but that is not the truth. The truth is, he defends his religion, and tells people about it, but doesn't do like some before him have (Basically you will believe or ELSE). Even if he still hasn't answered my question .
Zealots are rarely formed without outside pressure (yes it happens, but it is astronomically more so when outside pressure is applied). They see people they consider friends and family sanctioned, harmed, or killed and their leaders convince them that the only path left is retribution. You can not kill an idea, it is impossible. Trying to do so will only cause the more extream believers of that idea to react violently. The more you try to contain them, the wider it will spread (the extream behavior) causing a downward spiral.
Instead we should foster the positive aspects in those ideas. Then when some extream believer of an idea does something, the rest that believe that idea will see it for what it is. Just a person going to far, trying to lay the blame on everybody or everything other then themselves.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 10:52 AM |
|
|
*Sigh*
Mytical, we are talking about CHILDREN here and what is fed to THEM. We are NOT talking about adults trying to influence other adults, which is something else completely, so you laughing someone in the face who feeds you bull is not the question here.
It is fairly obvious, for example, that even IF you'd consider it a good idea to teach a child to love their neighbor the child would be impossible to do so, if it wouldn't know what love is (i.e. didn't experience love itself) - and we aren't talking about a specific person here, but in general. It's immediately obvious that this has grave consequences.
So: CHILDREN - by the way, you didn't answer my last question in the edit of the last post either.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:00 AM |
|
|
Just pointing out the difference of somebody telling a person what they believe in and forcing people to believe..and it's because it was an EDIT, I hadn't seen it yet. 
So to answer the question. Yes, yes I would. Personally I think children are a lot smarter then people give them credit for. However, even if the child had no way of knowing I would support it. Just as I would if the child elected to take a very dangerous surgery because it MIGHT make them better. Now..here is the million dollar question..
If you don't support the right of a child to make a medical decision, nor the parents to make it for them, who exactly should have the right to make the decision? The courts? Sorry NO.
The Police?..not only NO, but oh HECK no.
Some overworked social worker who might not have a clue what is going on?
Who?
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:19 AM |
|
|
The docs, of course. That's obviously the usual way. For children the parents have the say, legally, and parents usually do what the EXPERTS say, when they themselves have no idea.
However, in case of a blood transfusion that's not even relevant. In that case no one is even denying that the docs are right.
We are talking about a case when A CHILD follows a "religious belief" that forces it to die because the alternative isn't feasible. We are not talking about MIGHT here, because they reject blood transfusion IN PRINCIPLE, no matter the actual case, might, if or when.
It's a no-no. There is nothing smart about FOLLOWING BLINDLY A GENERAL TABOO! Nothing at all. In fact I would say that is the dumbest thing possible, and if humans would have followed it, we wouldn't exist.
Coming back for a moment to what you are weiting about: the vulnerability of people against other people's demagogic use of ideas.
Don't you think that the best insurance against this is to teach our children to think for themselves? And don't you think that it's extremely counter-productive in that respect when they are force-fed, no matter with what, since that is exactly the opposite?
I EDIT this again because this is an exemplary case for what I'm writing: Imagine any child. Should a child think about whether something the docs may do with it he might endanger his soul, his eternal salvation or whatever? NO! Such a child should think about the LIFE that is waiting outside of the hospital, that it just learned reading and writing and that the worls is full of things to explore. Which means, that the parents who taught their child are to blame - they force-fed the child something they shouldn't have done so.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 11:28 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:40, 08 Jul 2009.
|
Jollyjoker.
So you are going to give the Doctors the choice. The same Doctors that get paid per proceedure they do? The ones that have the financial incentive to order something that might not be needed? Now while it is doubtful they would do anything to intentionally harm, some proceedures are both unneeded and harmless.
Do I think the best thing is for us to teach our children to think for themselves. Absolutely, but I also think it is best if we teach our children to have an open mind. To respect other people, even if you don't agree with them. Again, I think you are right about force feeding, but I don't think you are right that every religious person does it. Since we can not know motive...(wait havn't we played this record before?)
Edit : What I don't get is this. You are advocating a childs right to think for themselves. Yet when this child made a decision, for whatever reason, you suddenly don't want him to think for himself, but have a doctor do the thinking for him...
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 12:28 PM |
|
|
Mytical, you are now arguing like the Death: you are sketching a problem that actually isn't there.
When you have the situation that a child is in hospital and rejects a blood transfusion that the docs say would save his life for reasons of belief than the problem is DEFINITELY not who has the say here.
The problem here is clearly and obviously the fact that the parents of this child force-fed it with religious rules and taboos and superstititious nonsense instead of teaching it something useful, and at the result of this is that instead of - I repeat myself here - wanting out of the hospital as soon as possible and enjoy the life again that has just got a new dimension by learning to read and write, to explore life, the world and whatnot and being thankful for human progress made it possible to survive something that might have been deadly decades or centuries ago, the child is either simply trusting what their parents said, accepting this "fate" to avoid worse, thereby simply doing what their parents said would be "best" for it, or - if a little older and more understanding, tormenting itself with trying to grasp something the child simply should not be forced to grasp: that it must die now, even though it could live, but that it will be best that way.
THAT is the actual problem here, not the question who has the say.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 08, 2009 12:53 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:06, 08 Jul 2009.
|
We see things differently. Then again if we all saw things the same way, the world would be boring. Anyhow, I digress.
We have to look at something here. You are talking about the Chemo case right? First..Chemo does not always work, in fact it can actually make things worse. I have first hand knowledge of that. Even that is not the point though.
The child made a choice, one that I would support just as fast as if the same child would choose to undergo brain surgery to remove even a benign tumor. Now if we decide for some reason that children can not make choices, then the parents should make the choice. Which would have changed nothing in this case.
I would be the first one to give the nod to a doctor in matters of health. After all, he is the professional. You don't call a plumber to sit and watch while you do the work, while you explain how to do plumbing (except maybe if you were a plumber?...anyhow sorry shiny thing..getting back on track). In the end though, it is the persons decision. Especially on risky matters.
Now I know you are going to say "But you are an adult" but I have to ask. Everybody knows I am sick, and there is ONE proceedure that could possibly fix (Or at least give me 20 or so more years of healthy living) what I have. It would require a liver transplant AND replacing as much as my blood as possible in a very short time during the transplant. The odds of survival are LESS then 30%. If I chose to not to do this proceedure because of a religious reason, instead of the fact that it has a 70% chance of killing me..would it make a difference?
Even a blood transfusion has risks, though miniscule. Even with the current technology people have become infected with AIDS (or other blood diseases) by transfusions. Would it really make a difference if the child would choose not to get blood for that reason instead of a religious one?
Everybody SHOULD listen to a doctor, but the final decision for their health should be their own..regardless of their reasons.
Edit : Unless of course in cases of Communicable Diseases..then I can understand over riding a persons personal decision.
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
