by nicolaou 73 Replies latest social family
Its worse than you can imagine. They're dancing around bonfires and squealing at burning effigies of 17th century failed revolutionaries!!!
I'm afraid... very afraid!!!
Edited to add teh following link for international explanation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes
fawkes was a patsy ross.....ninja the medieval conspiracist.........glad they're enjoying themselves.......cheers mate....da ninja
I truly believe that parents that introduce their children to religion have all good and well meaning intentions for doing so, that is without question and
shouldn't be argued. I'm confident my very own parents had well meaning intentions bringing myself up as a JWS., but there are apparent dangers of letting a religion
develop and formulate a child's character and social values. Since most common religions were devised and structured hundreds if not thousands of years ago on those structured values
and ideals , this might possibly delete any personal advancement for the individual or human advancement for that matter.
Most of the prominent religions that are established today express the notion that all mankind has to do is let the Gods guide us in are endeavors and social behaviors ( the spirits will tell us
the proper direction to take ) this has shown to be a detrimental folly as history has shown us.
Is this the kind of direction you want your children to have and partake in, certainly not mine !
HtA:What a jaded and over-simplified view.
Was it the irreligious who took to inventing the wonders of the modern world? Despite all the arguments that religion has hindered human progress we seem to have done pretty well. Despite religion being around as long as humans we seem to have survived a few generations. It must make for pretty terrible parenting, huh?
Could we have done better without religion, socially, familially and technologically? To argue for that is unscientific if you genuinely believe in the rational model - the "proof" simply isn't there. Should we really irradicate it? The few attempts at such a society have been dismal failures with no evidence of increased prosperity, affluence or progression. To believe such a view amounts to... well... so much "belief".
Should we promote such a view to our children on the gamble that we're correct? It would certainly be an interesting experiment, maybe on the scale of those suggested by Dr Spock (of no StarTrek connection) of the 1970s.
Religion has plenty of holes, but the areligious seem unable to present a reasonable argument for why they are right, either. Not if they genuinely seek to use the tools that allegedly got them where they already are (i.e. the scientific method). Does it boil down to personal choice? If so, is that a reasonable basis upon which to judge another's parenting skills?
LT,
I think some things should be made clear from the start to a child. 'Be careful of which adults you trust' would be a good one. They could use critical thinking skills and ask themselves questions like 'Is this person a teacher?' or 'Why is this person I've never met before trying to get me into his car?'
With things like Santa and the tooth fairy, I don't have a problem telling a child about these characters and letting them believe in them. There have been no bad effects to doing this that I have seen in studies or from anyones experiences (unless someone can show me otherwise) and in most cases they stop believing in them before the age of 10. If they don't, and carry on believing in Santa or the tooth fairy into adulthood, we have people and places that can help them- doctors and mental institutes.
If a child is 12 and says they don't believe in Santa, telling them they're wrong, or that you're disappointed in them, or treating them as if they're on Santa's bad list, is a bad attitude to have.
Fantasy in childhood is part of our development, but I don't think it should carry on past that. I'm not talking about using the imagination, I'm talking about really believing in people such as Santa. When fantasy ends, reality takes over. You may agree that reality is good and should be part of our worldview, but if not I can go into that in more detail.
I would be okay telling them my views, but I'd also tell them that they were mine, and that they didn't have to agree. If they became religious and didn't like to hear me bash faith, I wouldn't do it in their presence. That would be forcing them to listen.
On the topic of religion, I feel there is no reason to believe in a god and I see faith as another word for ignorance. My views may not be better, but I think they are, and that's why we get debates on the subject. I'm willing to be proved wrong.
People decide for themselves what to believe in the end, and talking about these things openly can be beneficial. I think it would be harder to accept new information if all we had were our own thoughts. Outside influence comes in and teaches us things we may not have known before.
I put god at the same level as faries, trolls or monsters under the bed. When god belief reaches this level in society as a whole, it may be okay to say to a young child there's an invisible being who made everything. It would be like telling them there's a man at the north pole who brings presents. It's fun to believe for a while, but it shouldn't be for life.
There would be other points to consider, of course. Like the prayer example- telling a child the tooth fairy is real is one thing, but telling the child they can have a personal relationship with the tooth fairy, that it has a special place you go to when you lose all your teeth or that any problems should be told to the tooth fairy before bed, is bad. It goes much deeper than a childhood fantasy then.
Appeals to emotion shouldn't be part of a debate, but in this case it is a hard one to avoid. People shouldn't be made to suffer, and if indoctrination can make a child suffer in some way (even in subtle ways) it should be open to discussion. If it was pointed out that people starving in Africa was a problem, it would not be dismissed as an appeal to emotion. It may affect us emotionally, but it is still a problem.
Kids celebrating Guy Fawks Day don't scare me, but those Glasgow neds do. Now that's a true halloween!
Seratonin:
I would be okay telling them my views, but I'd also tell them that they were mine, and that they didn't have to agree.
At what age would you take that approach? The very young would likely be confused by it. They like certainty. They like to believe that their parents are invincible, powerful and always corrent. Until they reach their teens, that is
Appeals to emotion shouldn't be part of a debate, but in this case it is a hard one to avoid.
I agree. This is a difficult subject to discuss rationally and in a detached manner, especially given that we've all been raised with such polarised views. Its a testiment to how reasonable so many can be that this topic hasn't decended into flame and vitriol. For all the fact that there are so many differing views on this site, its great to see that a good deal of the time we can discuss things and explore our opinions without too much rancor
Sweetstuff:
Glasgow neds
VERY scary!!! And many of them are parents
So Lt. what are the positives in the development of a child's mind, personality and character can you say that is worthy and beneficial for children in a individual sense ?
HtA:Are you referring to the benefits of a religous upbringing?
Its a framework of reference, a tool. Like all tools some are better than others. However, back to the theme of the thread, IMHO it doesn't make someone a POOR parent for choosing that particular tool.
Yes LT. what beneficial aspects of these tools can you give us for example, which you believe are beneficial to children in their growth and maturity ?
