Militant, authoritarian atheists

I have also noticed alot of my "co-religionists(atheists and some agnosticseven!!)" making arguments about "not teaching children the family religion"

I wish to poke fun at this silly notion for a moment.

What should you say to the child when all the adults go to temple, church, or synagoguge? We are going to pay the father some quality time? How about off to listen to something you should not hear until you are of proper maturity. The little tikes will go bonkers over this!! I can see armies of little kids roaming the neighborhood trying to sneak into a church or what have you just so they can squelch their curiousity!!

They would even form clubs trying to find out what the adults are doing. They will become more interested in religion than sex, I tell you and if these atheists wish to "capturue" the minds of the tots, I tell them now that they are wasting their time!! Better to wait until they are adults and capable of reasoning themselves than to play with someone elses child. You are asking for pain when you do that. Leave the kiddies to their parents, as any right thinking adult will do.

By the way--not teaching your child any religion is the same as teaching your child atheism. Just something I have to add.
 
I went to this benefit fund raiser over the weekend and found myself in a conversation with a man that I met there. He was obviously well educated, and pretty intelligent and knowledgable and we were getting along well...

until he brought up is loathing of all things God and religious.

Now, most people know I'm no bible thumper, and I'm more than willing to rip on any relgion, but this guy has a hair across his ass about it that just seems nuts to me.

He actually believes that it should be against the law to teach your children religion.

That's right, against the law. Have you ever heard of anything so militant, authoritarian and just plain absurd?

There are the extreme on both sides.

You know, there are religious who actually want "prayer" in public schools regardless of what the parents want. Because they have this loony idea they are "saving" the children. As if there aren't Catholic Schools and Sunday School, not to mention "church".

Worse, there are some who want to teach "mysticism" and the "occult" as alternatives to science, or else ban science. They don't care how much damage this causes the country, as long as their "supernatural" beliefs are pushed on impressionable young. It's just sickening.
 
I was in church a while back with my kids. My daughter was singing, so I was in the front pew filming her. And the guy sitting behind me, who is also exceedingly well educated, spent the whole time in church saying snide things about religion and even the bible passage chosen by the pastor.

Apparently THAT'S okay, but we're horrible people for daring to share our beliefs with our own children, in the privacy of our homes and churches.

OK...I'll bite. Why was the dude in church?
 
Manifold,

I am deeply flattered that you base your imaginary conversations on what you perceive to be my beliefs.

Best regards,

Ravi
 
Manifold,

I am deeply flattered that you base your imaginary conversations on what you perceive to be my beliefs.

Best regards,

Ravi


Imaginary? :lol:

I assure you it was real.

And the reason it made me think of you is a comment you posted a few weeks ago to the effect that indocrinating one's children is not a constitutional right.
 
I went to this benefit fund raiser over the weekend and found myself in a conversation with a man that I met there. He was obviously well educated, and pretty intelligent and knowledgable and we were getting along well...

until he brought up is loathing of all things God and religious.

Now, most people know I'm no bible thumper, and I'm more than willing to rip on any relgion, but this guy has a hair across his ass about it that just seems nuts to me.

He actually believes that it should be against the law to teach your children religion.

That's right, against the law. Have you ever heard of anything so militant, authoritarian and just plain absurd?

yes. I have.
I believe richard dawkins is a supporter of "rules, laws, regulations denying parents/adults the right to teach (brainwash/indoctrinate) CHILDREN with religion.

I understand his point
and I understand that todays brainwashed children (with religion) can easily turn into tomorrows conservative religious bigots

but I would NEVER support a LAW against teaching religion.

personally I would prefer that all children be given religious theory classes in schools to expose them to all of the various religions

this might actually result in more children growing up less religious and more secular
 
You know.......teaching religion is a really easy way to pass down pre-packaged ideals and values, in nice easy to understand bits.

What you do with those values when you reach 18 is all up to you, but you still need something to build on.

As far as the guy going to church and badmouthing it? Yeah......sex makes you do funny things, and he's probably doing that as a "vent" because he knows he ain't gonna get none unless he goes.
 
He's wrong.
Kids don't have the same rights that adults do.
The hopes of the anti's are to eventually overcome all parental rights and instill their own beliefs into the children via the programing. That is why so many people are opting out of public schools when they can for their children's sake.

Funny, that's exactly what a lot of the militant atheists say about the militant christians. And I'd say to some extent they're both right.

I'm not a fan of either group. Personal beliefs are personal and should be respected even and especially when people disagree. But look at what our politics have become, and how religion (or lack thereof) for good or ill has been intertwined with it. To say all whackjob militant fundamentalist Christians are conservative and all whackjob militant atheists are liberal is an overgeneralization but one with a large grain of truth to it all the same.

My question is, in all this fighting over "the children" - what are we actually teaching our children? This is where both camps lose all credibility with me.
"Our children" is the key phrase. When a total stranger lays absolute claim to another person's children they are out of line. That also goes for any bureaucratic office of the state or federal government.

If one wants to teach their children that there is no God it should be their prerogative. It comes right back to the "our children" key. Basic rights are supposed to be protected in this country but in fact are being usurped by special interests who are pushing their own agenda. It's for the children they say.

While my children were in their teens they attended the local public school operated mainly by one 'religious sect' of people. It is not a 'religion' that Rod nor I prescribe to although there are certain people in that religious sect that we like and have respect for. Not being a single secular religion type of person but being a believer in God the Father and Christ Jesus may for some have its own share of problems. My faith is faith in God. Religion is a label used to identify a person of faith irregardless of what faith they may have. For that matter, if you use a CB radio you have a label called a handle. If you post on the internet you have a label called a user name. These are labels which serve the singular purpose of identifying who you are to others. Since we did not belong to the in crowd of any of the local religious groups we all became easy targets for the different sects to harangue over. Keeping in mind that a religion or an idol can be anything that anyone joins whether it be a cult of potheads, organized atheists, a group of fraudulent money grubbers, business associations, a political group, the local golf club, a religious group based in a church setting or any other type of group pushing their special agenda which promotes their particular way of thinking.

Promoting by force is where the line in the sand is drawn. Force by legislation and promulgated rules which is promoted by special interest is dangerous when is usurps the rights of an individual's personal choice. Groups may have the right to promote their ideals but they have no right to force their ideals on others. A group may try to publicly promote their ideals but they should also respect the same right of others to publicly reject their ideals. I would suggest that a group state their claim and leave an address and phone number. Those who want to join can do so. Those that don't want to join do not have to. For our congressmen and senators to pass legislation which forces all to accept and a punishment for those who do not is a very slippery slope and dangerous. An atheist has every right to raise their children as atheists. A believer has every right to raise their children as believers. One thing is for certain in both of these scenarios and that is; children grow up and leave home and clearly develop their own belief system whether it be atheist or a believer makes no difference. It is part of the human spirit which legislation and science can never change. One's beliefs are one's beliefs and they are all subject to change at any time.

For one group to push it's obvious another will oppose. Is this not the history of mankind?
 
I have also noticed alot of my "co-religionists(atheists and some agnosticseven!!)" making arguments about "not teaching children the family religion"

I wish to poke fun at this silly notion for a moment.

What should you say to the child when all the adults go to temple, church, or synagoguge? We are going to pay the father some quality time? How about off to listen to something you should not hear until you are of proper maturity. The little tikes will go bonkers over this!! I can see armies of little kids roaming the neighborhood trying to sneak into a church or what have you just so they can squelch their curiousity!!

They would even form clubs trying to find out what the adults are doing. They will become more interested in religion than sex, I tell you and if these atheists wish to "capturue" the minds of the tots, I tell them now that they are wasting their time!! Better to wait until they are adults and capable of reasoning themselves than to play with someone elses child. You are asking for pain when you do that. Leave the kiddies to their parents, as any right thinking adult will do.

By the way--not teaching your child any religion is the same as teaching your child atheism. Just something I have to add.


I am really tired of these statements. ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION. There are those that take it to the extreme and make it a quasi religion but that does not make all atheists (or even the majority) religious people. Atheism is a lack of religion. I am an atheist and I HAVE NO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
 
He actually believes that it should be against the law to teach your children religion.


Of course I didn't even tell you the best part, his reasoning.

Claimed that such a ban wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment because the parents would still be allowed to "practice whatever voodoo" floats their boat, but freedom of religion doesn't allow you to force religion on your child. Actually believes that parents that do so today (and there are many), are actually violating their child's constitutional rights in doing so.

I have to disagree with that reasoning. Since a child is not properly cognizant on issues dealing with reality, their ability to think and make important decisions must be funneled through a reliabel source that seeks to protect them. Thus the role of the parent is to make those decisions for the child until the child mental abilities have properly matured--that is assumed to take 20 years. During this time, all rights of the child is no more than an extension of the parents will. Of course, a good parent does not need to sit down and make this argument with the child! They carry on in their decision making as if the child existance is the precise point to making any decisions about the child. I commend these parents--that is instinctual parental skills that is "FELT" and not "REASONED" and is not taught in any Liberal arts school or even Home education. Keep up the good work!!

In short, the rights of children are property of the parents until the child reaches adulthood. Such complex concepts such as freedom of speech and so forth are laughable in terms of child rearing and protecting the child as practiced under a loving parents care. And on the issue of education--the parents have full jurisdiction in terms of what the child should learn, when they should learn it, how they should learn it and even who should teach it to them!! How can an ignorant little brat make such decisions! They can not, thus the burden must fall to the parents!!

The above argument is really one of commonsense practice in any home where there is a parent, and children to be raised! I wonder about these madmen that try to give serious decision making powers to children. Do they really think they are aiding the children of the world? Of course not!! Their ideas are silly!! How will the ignorant learn? By example--reality's cruelest teacher? Those madmen must hope to gain fools to mislead!! Parents, do not take the words of that apostate seriously. He is an insane fool at best!

This is a downright scary interpretation of children. Children DO have right and are IN NO WAY EXTENTIONS OF THEIR PARENTS. Under that logic I can do whatever I want to my children – beat, torture, kill…..
Children are their own entity but the relationship that a parent shares with their child is very close and a right of that child as well. Your belifs are your own and a special treasure that you have an obligation to pass on. I myself am not religious and I would not teach my child a religion but I would NEVER meddle in another’s right to do so. To be religious is to believe that you need to be a part of that religion to attain the greatest gifts possible – why would you deny that to your child? For those that wish to obstruct that with law they are authoritarians and have no true concept of what it means to be American.
 
hang on, i will PM my elaborate response to you.

Mani: I'll do the same thing as LacEder. I would rather not respond in public because what I have to say is incredibly embarrassing for me...and will actually be twice as embarrassing for you.
 
Of course I didn't even tell you the best part, his reasoning.

Claimed that such a ban wouldn't violate the 1st Amendment because the parents would still be allowed to "practice whatever voodoo" floats their boat, but freedom of religion doesn't allow you to force religion on your child. Actually believes that parents that do so today (and there are many), are actually violating their child's constitutional rights in doing so.

I have to disagree with that reasoning. Since a child is not properly cognizant on issues dealing with reality, their ability to think and make important decisions must be funneled through a reliabel source that seeks to protect them. Thus the role of the parent is to make those decisions for the child until the child mental abilities have properly matured--that is assumed to take 20 years. During this time, all rights of the child is no more than an extension of the parents will. Of course, a good parent does not need to sit down and make this argument with the child! They carry on in their decision making as if the child existance is the precise point to making any decisions about the child. I commend these parents--that is instinctual parental skills that is "FELT" and not "REASONED" and is not taught in any Liberal arts school or even Home education. Keep up the good work!!

In short, the rights of children are property of the parents until the child reaches adulthood. Such complex concepts such as freedom of speech and so forth are laughable in terms of child rearing and protecting the child as practiced under a loving parents care. And on the issue of education--the parents have full jurisdiction in terms of what the child should learn, when they should learn it, how they should learn it and even who should teach it to them!! How can an ignorant little brat make such decisions! They can not, thus the burden must fall to the parents!!

The above argument is really one of commonsense practice in any home where there is a parent, and children to be raised! I wonder about these madmen that try to give serious decision making powers to children. Do they really think they are aiding the children of the world? Of course not!! Their ideas are silly!! How will the ignorant learn? By example--reality's cruelest teacher? Those madmen must hope to gain fools to mislead!! Parents, do not take the words of that apostate seriously. He is an insane fool at best!

This is a downright scary interpretation of children. Children DO have right and are IN NO WAY EXTENTIONS OF THEIR PARENTS. Under that logic I can do whatever I want to my children – beat, torture, kill…..
Children are their own entity but the relationship that a parent shares with their child is very close and a right of that child as well. Your belifs are your own and a special treasure that you have an obligation to pass on. I myself am not religious and I would not teach my child a religion but I would NEVER meddle in another’s right to do so. To be religious is to believe that you need to be a part of that religion to attain the greatest gifts possible – why would you deny that to your child? For those that wish to obstruct that with law they are authoritarians and have no true concept of what it means to be American.

Yes--children are a natural extension of their parents. Where do you think kids come from?

If there were no liberals and moral people, yes you have every right and cause to beat your tots to death--if you want them dead. It is only when you take on moral reasoning(and societal norms are forced upon you) is the concept of child abuse/killing become a recognized evil!! Without society--Parents become like gods to their little kids!!....And they should act the part!
 
militant atheism is worse than many types of fundamentalist religion. the person described in the OP is scary
 
Without society--Parents become like gods to their little kids!!....And they should act the part!
You say this like it's a bad thing.

It is not a bad thing--it is the only way for a parent to ensure that their child is raised properly!!

A parent is the first benevolent authoritarian. They must guide, protect and nourish their offsprings--and if one becomes a threat to the family's continuance--then that brat must be eliminated.


Let me say it again. The parents are the creator of the child. The child is born from parts and contributions of each parent. The child responsibility is to become the parents representation after the parent has kicked the bucket. Thus the parent must ensure that the child has the proper education and understand his familys' identity long before the parent leave this realm. If the child refuses this simple deal, then the parents have every right to produce a replacement of that child. Translation: the parents have a natural right to rid themselves of unwanted and ill-learned children. If the brat refuses to carry the banners of the family and take up the responsiblity of their makers(parents) then that child has zero rights to exist.

The implication of "Humanitiy" as it applies to children and child rearing blinds the humanitarian to what children actually are. I blame society, I blame Liberals, I blame moralists for this misunderstanding of children and their true purpose to a family and parents.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top