Jesus Camp

There's this new documentary that's getting a lot of buzz. I watched the trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE and was immediately scared. Not like The Ring scared, but like "Holy shit! This is really happening" scared. It made me mad, too.:mad:

What makes me mad is this notion that it's the obligation of parents to indoctrinate their children into THEIR particular religious worldview rather than let them develop their own perspectives through time. Since this indoctrination takes place very early, the kids must eventually reconcile their religion with the reality around them as they grow up. Some can do this rather well, and seem to retain the humanistic qualities of their parents' religion and leave behind the fanatical and irrational qualities, arriving at a sort of benign compromise. Others carry the banner of their parents' religion and move further and further away from our evil secular society, choosing friends of similar worldview and trying to inject their faith into our political and legal systems of governance. The latter seem to be a growing group, a disturbing voting bloc. This is why you see Democrats pandering to them, making sure they use the word "god" and "faith" in their speeches. Most of these Democrats are the benign compromisers, but they are forced to sound more "fundamental" than they are. And this brings me to a sad but true point:

There could NEVER be an atheist president. Think about it. Condi Rice (Black Woman), Lieberman (Jew) Hillary (Wellesley College lesbian), are at least mentioned, but if anybody publically stated that they were "Godless," as beautiful Ann Coulter calls us, it would be over in terms of holding high office (yes Tommy, I know). But wouldn't being "Godless" be a good quality for a president? One's decisions and actions would be intrinsically free from religious bias. People of all religions (and there are a lot of them) could be sure the President would not play favorites. But it could never happen because "Godless" means "Goodless" for most Christians. That's what really burns me up about the title of Coulter's alleged "book." The presumption is that people who are "godless" must be, ipso facto, "bad" people.

Not only is that wrong, it's insulting (imagine, Ann Coulter insulting people).

I know a lot of people who went to Christian schools or were raised Jewish and are of other faiths now... it does not matter.
You decide on your own when you are old enough.:rolleyes:

Pangloss62 wrote:

What makes me mad is this notion that it's the obligation of parents to indoctrinate their children into THEIR particular religious worldview rather than let them develop their own perspectives through time.

Does this really surprise you? I mean, the job of a parent is to teach their kids. If a parent thinks something is true, they will pass that along to their kids. They aren't going to teach their kids something they don't believe in. It's been going on since the beginning of time. "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." "A chip off the old block." etc.

All truth is subjective... do you teach your kid that murder is wrong?
Same thing.

I was raised as a Catholic. I went to a Convent school until I was 12 and went to Mass until I was 16. The first festival (as in music festival) I ever attended at 15 was called Greenbelt, and it was a Christian music festival. I was only allowed to attend because it was a Christian festival, but to adolescents - trust me - it was a way to get a camping holiday, listen to music and comedy and stay up as late as you liked with your friends without your parents worrying!

There was a meeting every day called The Rolling Magazine - it was a madhouse. Games called Sieve 'Ed (running round the tent with various substances held in a sieve above your head) Egg Chuck (yup, fresh eggs - catch & you stand a pace apart) etc etc etc. Volunteers for these games nearly had a fit trying to catch Pip's attention. At 15, when we all wanted to be adults & drink & have sex. Amazing.

And we got to meet other people our age who believed in God. It was the love that dared not speak its name. Are you going to ask a classmate if they know Jesus? Not if you're not part of an evangelical church you're not!

Now we weren't taught hatred. Or aggression. Pip told us all - you are a beautiful human person. You need to hear that at 15. And when we graduated to The Very Stinking Late Show at 17 we needed to hear it just as much.

But I say - let Christian youngsters have their fun. They're living in a world where people on tv routinely break the 10 Commandments. Life is confusing for them. With any luck they'll graduate to accept a wider world view. But like Fat Camp - give them a chance not to feel like freaks.

(btw I got drunk & sucked cock @ Greenbelt. Just not at my 1st one. I guess the debbil told me to do it)

Does this really surprise you? I mean, the job of a parent is to teach their kids. If a parent thinks something is true, they will pass that along to their kids. They aren't going to teach their kids something they don't believe in. It's been going on since the beginning of time. "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree." "A chip off the old block." etc.

Religious indoctrination is NOT teaching. Secondly, not everyone indoctrinates their children. I know of several couples who "teach" their children about the world around them, consequences of actions, etc. Religion enters into it only as an anthropological concept: "Some people believe..." Some would say such "godless" teaching is bad and provides no moral or ethical foundation, but I disagree. I can think of a lot of things that "have been going on since the beginning of time;" that's a sorry basis for keeping them going.:neutral:

The only regret I have about being an atheist is that if I have children I can't give them the framework I was given growing up.

Apart from anything else, a working knowledge of the Bible puts you ahead in English Literature, And aside from that it is great to grow up secure that someone, somewhere loves you. Even when your Dad has said the ultimate, "I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed"

I say teach a child tolerance and if you are an agnostic, bring them up in a religion. How can they choose a disciplined life if they have no experience of it?

Yeah, SG, I'm a lapsed Catholic, and my Catholic school, church, and CCD classes did not kill me. But I've seen what hard-core Catholicism has done to my mom and our relationship.:neutral:

I recognize cool religious things like the Inverted Arch at Wells Cathedral, all the "smells and bells" of the Catholic Mass, the scary paintings of the stations of the cross etc. I don't know. I don't and likely won't have kids anyway, so it's a moot point.

There are societies/cultures that are basically agnostic and/or atheist. I think of France and perhaps the Netherlands here. I don't know. It's the fanaticism I see, and the literalism. I think the Bible DOES have some life lessons to offer, but people tend to mix those up with righteousness. I don't know.:sniff:

Maybe this is why I like the modernists (Klee, Kandinsky, Miro, etc.).:neutral:

There are a ton of lapsed Catholics on this board.

Brianna wrote:

There are a ton of lapsed Catholics on this board.

*waves*

Sundae Girl wrote:

The only regret I have about being an atheist is that if I have children I can't give them the framework I was given growing up.

I was brought up as an atheist. I am a proud, third-generation atheist. I was brough up with a very strong framework, thankyouverymuch! "Don't hit him -- how would you feel if he hit you?" Where does Jesus fit in that framework? It's a bit like a fish without a bicycle.

Sundae Girl wrote:

Apart from anything else, a working knowledge of the Bible puts you ahead in English Literature,

Agreed. I was livid when I got dinged for not knowing how old JHC was when they axed him. Asked my 10th grade english teacher how the hell a non-believer was responsible for knowing the contents of her bible. Told her I'd take the hit for my lack of knowledge if she could show knowledge of say, the Koran. Nearly got me into the principal's office.

Sundae Girl wrote:

And aside from that it is great to grow up secure that someone, somewhere loves you. Even when your Dad has said the ultimate, "I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed"

Guess what? It's not true. "The Universe doesn't love you" is a much better piece of philosophy, because it's demonstrably true. Lying to a child isn't likely to help them in the long run.

Sundae Girl wrote:

I say teach a child tolerance and if you are an agnostic, bring them up in a religion. How can they choose a disciplined life if they have no experience of it?

They can choose discipline if their role models (ie. their parents!) are disciplined.

Pie wrote:

Guess what? It's not true. "The Universe doesn't love you"

That is not true. I am proof. The Universe DOES love you. It even loves Pie.

Brianna wrote:

There are a ton of lapsed Catholics on this board.

I prefer to think of it as being a Recovering Cathaholic.

Brianna wrote:

It even loves Pie.

Everybody loves Pie! :blush:

Sundae Girl wrote:

The only regret I have about being an atheist is that if I have children I can't give them the framework I was given growing up.....How can they choose a disciplined life if they have no experience of it?

I grew up an atheist (not with Pie's splendid pedigree, however!) and I had a framework. What I really resent is how, in Britain, the Church of England is seen as being the moral arbiter on every questions, as if it were not possible to have a moral stance on a question without the Christian god telling you what to think. You, Sundae Girl, seem to be saying the same thing. Tell m this isn't true!

I went to a Christian primary school and, while the school was officially secular, my secondary school was also Christian (C of E). All assemblies were Christian (without much regard for those in the school who -weren't- Christian) and we had RE lessons which were very much designed to promote Christianity. I've not got a huge problem with this; I understand the arguments for it, although I found it a little baffling that we also had lessons designed to try and promote autonomous thinking (though I am not inferring Christianity and autonomous thought are mutually exclusive, I found it odd we were told what we should believe but then told we should make up our own minds).

Anyway, I had a Christian education but I have grown up not to be Christian. The main cause for this was the manner of the Christian figureheads. I remember in my primary school, when children expressed doubt in CofE, the Rev would get very, very, very mad. I mean, throwing things across the room mad. By secondary school, those that expressed that they did not wish to take part in Christian assemblies or sing hymns were subjected to ridicule infront of the whole school (usually forced to choose between what would result in weeks of detention or to get up on stage in front of 1000+ pupils and sing a a hymn solo). Mercifully, this stopped when we progressed through the years.

I didn't, and still don't, understand how a truth which is supposed to be self-evident in the world (e.g. God) is forced upon children. If I were to discover faith in an omnipotent being, I thing the relationship with him would be far more profound if i were find it myself and then do the whole letting him into my life type of thing.

When i see things such as that documentary, I just want to know why the camp is doing it - for the souls of the children, or to bolster the support of their agenda?

Ah well.

limey wrote:

I grew up an atheist (not with Pie's splendid pedigree, however!) and I had a framework. What I really resent is how, in Britain, the Church of England is seen as being the moral arbiter on every questions, as if it were not possible to have a moral stance on a question without the Christian god telling you what to think. You, Sundae Girl, seem to be saying the same thing. Tell m this isn't true!

And to Pie too - I think perhaps it was the times I was brought up in. I grew up under Thatcher's Government, and in those days it seemed like the only publicly recognised credo was "Greed is good" (yes I know that's from Wall Street, but it was accepted long before it was written). Whereas I was brought up on the Gospel of St Matthew - If a stranger asks you for your shirt, give him your coat as well. It was at odds with the times and made me feel my framework came from religion.

I do accept my statement was sweeping, and I hope that if I did have children I'd be able to give them my own framework. But I stand by being indebted to Christianity - as much as my parents' humanism to soften it - for my views today.

Also, Pie - my parents didn't lie to me when they told me God loved me no matter what I did. I don't believe in their God - but they did at the time, and so did I. My parents gave me the same message of course (they loved me) but parents are human and can't help showing that sometimes they wish you had a Pause button.

I am glad to hear from people with an atheist upbringing though. It gives me hope.

When i see things such as that documentary, I just want to know why the camp is doing it

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the motivation is self-centered. They are indoctrinating their children because of THEIR religious fanaticism, and using them to create the world THEY want. It's sick. It's child abuse. I will say no more about it.:neutral:

But hello Pie (and Meiso). I've NEVER met a 3rd-generation atheist. I would also be proud. My father, also an atheist, never really told my Catholic mother that he was one. After married, however, the separation began. That rift forced me and my siblings to jump to one side or the other, and despite my mother's almost desperate attempts (that are still going on!), we all jumped, at least philisophically speaking, to my father's side. Not ONE of the six children are true believers, but we are all confirmed Catholics. I think I have to go to through the Vatican to be excommunicated; I don't like the idea of being "confirmed," even if it's only symbolic. Think of it like removing a big tattoo that your mom gave you.:neutral:

Sundae Girl wrote:

It was at odds with the times and made me feel my framework came from religion.

I do accept my statement was sweeping, and I hope that if I did have children I'd be able to give them my own framework. But I stand by being indebted to Christianity - as much as my parents' humanism to soften it - for my views today.

I understand. As adults, we have reached our points of view by incorporating many perspectives around us. I would be an utter fool to say that there was nothing of value in a religious outlook.

Sundae Girl wrote:

Also, Pie - my parents didn't lie to me when they told me God loved me no matter what I did. I don't believe in their God - but they did at the time, and so did I. My parents gave me the same message of course (they loved me) but parents are human and can't help showing that sometimes they wish you had a Pause button.

In your case, the "security blanket" worked. I do know people who are agnostic or athiest today, and are bitter at being force-fed as children. YMMV.

Sundae Girl wrote:

I am glad to hear from people with an atheist upbringing though. It gives me hope.

Thank you for your post, Sundae. I am guilty of my own knee-jerk reactions to the whole "moral framework" question. It goes back to a conversation I never had with my mother-in-law to be... And unfortunately, I never will resolve the issue. She passed away twelve years ago. :(

Brianna wrote:

There are a ton of lapsed Catholics on this board.

Yep, still recovering! :)

Sundae Girl wrote:

(btw I got drunk & sucked cock @ Greenbelt. Just not at my 1st one. I guess the debbil told me to do it)

This one time, at Jesus camp...

Brianna wrote:

There are a ton of lapsed Catholics on this board.

I've been riding my bike and losing weight, so you may want to revise your comment.

Brianna wrote:

That is not true. I am proof. The Universe DOES love you. It even loves Pie.

Bri, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the universe is just using you for sex.

But don't despair, it's the universe who should feel cheap and ashamed for taking advantage of your trust. We all love you.

Limey and Meiso both point to one of the often ignored aspects of religion today and that is those who defeated their adversaries got to expound their views and use their modus operandi to enforce their own policies. Either through implication or stated outright religious leaders would have you believe that they are doing god's work and will, it must be because we kicked the shit out of our opponents back in AD 400 or so and then we set up the council of Nicaea (sp?) to get rid of anyone who says or thinks differently than we.

Just because it's the current paradigm doesn't mean it's true or right.

What does this have to do with anything anyway? I'm gonna go back to work.

What does this have to do with anything anyway? I'm gonna go back to work.

Well said. :rolleyes:

WTF, I don't understand your consternation at parents teaching their children what they believe is good for them.

I know of several couples who "teach" their children about the world around them, consequences of actions, etc. Religion enters into it only as an anthropological concept: "Some people believe..." Some would say such "godless" teaching is bad and provides no moral or ethical foundation, but I disagree. I can think of a lot of things that "have been going on since the beginning of time;" that's a sorry basis for keeping them going.

Several couples? Out of how many Billion people? C'mon, parents have always done this....parents have a duty to pass knowledge to their kids. Just because you don't agree with their views doesn't make it wrong for them to teach their kids what they believe to be right. Saying that's a sorry basis for keeping them going, assumes they are wrong in what they are doing, but they don't believe they are.If they did they probably wouldn't be doing it, would they?

The only thing that film shows is parents are modern, savy, keeping up with progress, with todays trends.....outsourcing. :lol:

I just watched the trailer.

First thought was about the woman comparing the camps where children are taught to lob grenades to her camp. My guess is that these christian soldiers will get their grenade lessons later, after they are thoroughly indoctrinated.

My second thought is that the Jesuits (whom I admire quite a bit) have cottoned onto this concept a long time ago. There is a reason they open schools rather than do evangelical work. To paraphrase "give me a child's mind until they are seven and you can have them after that". Notice how young most of the kids are.

thirdly, I agree with Bruce. There isn't any thing wrong with parents passing on their beliefs to their children. Yes, we may not think that a parent should teach their child to hate or lob grenades, but if that is the case then we ought to open our own damn camps and teach what we believe rather than try to shut down other people's camps.

Finally, judging by the way the trailer was cut (edited) my guess is that the "documentary" isn't all that a) impartial and b)sympathetic.

There isn't any thing wrong with parents passing on their beliefs to their children.

Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!

"Niggers are lazy and inferior." "Jews are stingy and control all the banks." "People who deny God are going to Hell." "Women should submit to their husbands." "Our faith is the ONLY true faith, and if you reject it, you too will burn in Hell." All "beliefs" that are passed on to children to this day.

"Beliefs" are just that; they have no basis in reality.

Bollocks!!

Pangloss, the beliefs you cite are hardly worth passing along to children, no one should argue that. It becomes a stickier matter when someone dictates to you what beliefs you should pass along to your children. If the balance of power were different would you want to be compelled by others to pass along:

"Niggers are lazy and inferior." "Jews are stingy and control all the banks." "People who deny God are going to Hell." "Women should submit to their husbands." "Our faith is the ONLY true faith, and if you reject it, you too will burn in Hell.

I don't think so. As I stated earlier, you should feel compelled to start passing your beliefs along and no one should stop you from mounting a public awareness campaign that the racist beliefs you cited are pure bollocks. Pure, sweaty bollocks at that.

I just think parents should not convince their children of the existence of supernatural phenomena, which form the basis for most every religion. Teach knowledge, skills, empirical truths, don't indoctrinate. Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

Some of our PA parishoners here may check me out on this:
I think the Amish are in agreement with you hence 'rumspringa'. As I understood they feel that a child is not capable of making moral decisions i.e. joining a religion and so spend some time before commiting to formally joining the community. (probably full of inaccuracies)

Pangloss62 wrote:

.... Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

Very neatly put. Can I use that?

Can I use that?

Sure.:neutral:

Pangloss62 wrote:

Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

Why teach them if you don't believe that they are true? Do you have some empirical set of data that leads you to hold certain values? Or are you simply passing along a set of learned, and believed, ethical values?

This seems like a pretty artificial distinction to me.

Do you have some empirical set of data that leads you to hold certain values?

Experience and history of past human behavior rather than "data." I generally follow Kant's Categorical Imperitive:

[COLOR="Navy"]"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." [/COLOR]

That boils down to the "Golden Rule," you know, the "do unto others" rule.

By following the above no "beliefs" are needed.:neutral:

The transition from "this is a way to live" to "this is the way you ought to live" is a transition from principle to belief.

Pangloss62 wrote:

Bollocks! Pure Bollocks!

"Niggers are lazy and inferior." "Jews are stingy and control all the banks." "People who deny God are going to Hell." "Women should submit to their husbands." "Our faith is the ONLY true faith, and if you reject it, you too will burn in Hell." All "beliefs" that are passed on to children to this day.

"Beliefs" are just that; they have no basis in reality.

Bollocks!!

So what?
My parents were taught many of those and so was I. They discarded some of them, I discarded some of the rest...
Big deal.
I promise you a lot of what you were taught was not "based in reality"... should we all hunt down your parents and persecute them?
You are overreacting.

Pangloss62 wrote:

I just think parents should not convince their children of the existence of supernatural phenomena, which form the basis for most every religion. Teach knowledge, skills, empirical truths, don't indoctrinate. Ethics and values are not contingent on religion. These can be taught as principles, not "beliefs."

Oh, now I got it. Parents shouldn't teach their children what they believe,
they should teach their children what you believe.
I think not.:headshake

I may not agree with what they teach their children, but I'll defend to the death their right to teach them. What do you propose, snatch all the children and put them in secular camps? Let the state raise them in a sterile setting?

...and folks wonder why we don't send our kids to public schools even though we are not religous nuts and are actually pretty open minded.

they should teach their children what you believe.

You haven't been paying attention. I do not "believe" anything. Period. I said parents should not teach "beliefs." How hard is that to grasp? I'm not going to force anyone to do anything, I'm just saying it would be a better world if we got rid of "belief."

...and folks wonder why we don't send our kids to public schools

And why would an advocate of not teaching beliefs make for a "bad" public school teacher? I've taught college undergrads with great success and appreciation, and have engaged children in the study of history through volunteer work and through my job.

Pangloss62 wrote:

And why would an advocate of not teaching beliefs make for a "bad" public school teacher? I've taught college undergrads with great success and appreciation, and have engaged children in the study of history through volunteer work and through my job.

The parents who are compelled to pay your salary should not be held in contempt by you. It is fine to challenge beliefs but to suggest that parents not teach there own children what they believe is shockingly high-handed.

The parents who are compelled to pay your salary should not be held in contempt by you.

Why not? It's hard not too when you see what little un-thinking horors their parents have created. Besides, it's not like I'm out to become some educational Mussolini, I was just making and observation and suggesting a possible solution.

to suggest that parents not teach there own children what they believe is shockingly high-handed.

It's just a suggestion.:neutral:

The ultimate high-handedness is to not allow your children to think for themselves. People treat their children these days like little projects, molding them to become what THEY want them to be.:neutral:

"We're only making plans for Nigel...We only want what's best for him." XTC

I heard that song yesterday and thought about this thread. No wonder I liked that band.:rolleyes:

Parents should teach their children what they believe, because they are too stupid to form reasonable opinions on their own.

A brain that still thinks it's a good idea to pick one's nose and eat it is not capable of philosophy. The reason we aren't booted from the nest as soon as we can walk is because we aren't fully developed between the ears until age 22 or so.

If you don't believe me, just read the rest of this thread. Nobody thinks about this shit past age 25, they're too busy making a living. :haha:

You people are just not understanding me. I never claimed one should not teach their children, I just would never teach my children "beliefs." Teach them all you know, just don't teach "beliefs" That word presupposes a lack of knowledge, a sort of hesitant, "Well, son, I can't say for sure, but I believe...."

I don't even use the construction "I believe..." in any sentence. It's useless.:neutral:

And eating boogers never hurt anyone.:right:

Pangloss62 wrote:

I said parents should not teach "beliefs."

I think you're fooling yourself.

A lot of things that are beliefs need to be taught. I believe that it's bad to shoot at people for fun. That's a belief that I have passed on to my children. I hope that they pick up a lot of my beliefs. Lots of things that are not 'facts' still need to be taught to children. Real life can never be neatly packaged in the way that you hope.

I'm not kidding myself.

That's a belief that I have passed on to my children.

You really sat your kids down and said "You really shouldn't shoot people for fun."? Was there something they did to make you do this?

Regardless, that sounds more like rational advice than a "belief."

Shooting people for fun will likely get you arrested, and cause you lots of stress trying not to be arrested. It will also engender a generally negative culture which could eventually get you killed for fun. More important, that one would have "fun" shooting people indicates a psychological problem that could lead to other behaviors that would have a negative impact on the individual, other individuals, and the functioning of society in general.

Should one shoot or kill people as punishment? In self-defense? As a military action? Maybe you're the one making neat little packages. I never said or even implied life is simple.

Generally, I try to stay away from using "right" or "wrong" as absolutes. Such concepts do absolutely nothing to encourage or prevent what are considered "right" and "wrong" anyway.

I think the problem here is that I'm using the word "belief" too narrowly and many cellarites are using it too generally. I still think that the essence of the word "belief" relates to emotional convictions rather than rational thought, and that the former has caused more problems in the world than the latter.:neutral:

Pangloss62 wrote:

You really sat your kids down and said "You really shouldn't shoot people for fun."? Was there something they did to make you do this?

There are lots of ways to pass on beliefs that don't require a lecture.

Pangloss62 wrote:

Regardless, that sounds more like rational advice than a "belief."

One man's rational advice is another person's belief and vice versa. That's the problem and that's where I think you are fooling yourself. Life is never going to break down into the nice tidy pigeonholes that you seem to want it to. It's why two very rational and very logical people can still disagree on major issues.

Pangloss62 wrote:

Should one shoot or kill people as punishment? In self-defense? As a military action? Maybe you're the one making neat little packages. I never said or even implied life is simple.

When you imply that all of life should be handled "rationally", then you are trying to make life simpler than it really is.

Pangloss62 wrote:

Generally, I try to stay away from using "right" or "wrong" as absolutes. Such concepts do absolutely nothing to encourage or prevent what are considered "right" and "wrong" anyway.

Doing the rational thing is not always the right thing.

If you use only rationality as a measure, then people would follow the current legal standards and whatever their peers would applaud. So, assuming you are white, then not allowing blacks into your store in the 1940s would be completely rational. It's what the law expects and your peers applaud. In fact, if you did allow blacks into your white store, you would lose the business of your, wealthier, white patrons.

That doesn't make it right.

I DO say I'm not sure but "I believe". I tell my son the truth and will continue to.
Those who do not deserve what they get.

One man's rational advice is another person's belief and vice versa.

I disagree. There are major, intrinsic differences between rationality and belief.

Life is never going to break down into the nice tidy pigeonholes that you seem to want it to.

Why do you keep thinking that I'm trying to make "nice tidy pigeonholes?"

When you imply that all of life should be handled "rationally", then you are trying to make life simpler than it really is.

Quite the opposite. It's beliefs and belief systems that try to make life simpler than it really is. "The earth is flat." "The sun revolves around the earth." "God is all-powerful and omnicient." "The Bible is infallible." That's the main purpose of beliefs; to try and explain things you can't explain.

Doing the rational thing is not always the right thing.

I already told you I don't use "right" or "wrong" as absolutes. By using the term as above, you presuppose there is such a thing as "the right thing."

If you use only rationality as a measure, then people would follow the current legal standards and whatever their peers would applaud.

They would? Wasn't (and isn't) the struggle for Civil Rights about NOT following current legal standards and going against your peers? People had to break laws to change them to a more rational view. It was irrational to segregate humans based upon race. Segregation's irrationality is what allowed it to be attacked in the first place. You have it all backwards.


You couldn't be more wrong about rationality being some kind of cop out. Being a rationalist is a very hard and difficult way to be, but it's the most honest. We are few when compared to all the believers in the world. All their beliefs give them comfort in what is, essentially, a meaningless void filled with chunks of matter. They invoke a "God" that they are told "loves" them. They conjure the idea of "heaven" where they will reside after they die. They speak of their "souls" and what's in their "heart," as if that was not the pump that circulates their blood but some metaphysical entity that defines who they are.

No. If I wanted life to be easier, I would certainly have "beliefs." I wouldn't have to tell girlfriends a month or so into the relationship that "No. I don't believe in love," and watch them cringe in disappointment at my honesty. It's hard to find women who are rationalists. All the ones I've known had kids and became soccer moms. When these kinds of women have kids they usually get all soft intellectually. Some hormones must change them from witty, smart, critical thinkers into malleable and maudlin mush.

Rationalists like me are slandered, shunned, and called names. They are told by others that "You want to have it easy." They have to live in a world made up mostly of people that believe in superstitions, are suspicious of you if you actually state that you don't believe in God, and get mad if you point out their irrationality. What's worse, I've run into people at parties who say, after I tell them my view of reality, that they "feel sorry for me." How condescending. I would not mind empathy, but please, don't feel "sorry" for me. I feel sorry for them, but I have the manners to hold my tongue (that's what I like about the Cellar; I can say what I want).

One of the most difficult things about living the rational life relates to making choices and decisions. I think the worst advice anybody could give is telling you to "do what you feel in your heart." How meaningless. When people start making decisions this way, it's usually the wrong one. Women choose to stay with abusive men; men stay with boring, emotionally suffocating women; etc.

Besides, primates are not monogamous, so this whole notion of the permanent, fidelitous relationship goes against all our instincts (at least in our reproductive years). We have these big brains that can help us understand our instinctual controls and determine and guide rational behavior in light of them, but we let our emotions rule. Then when the divorce or breakup comes, we have to find blame in ourselves or others, rather than realize it's completely natural to have many relationships over time. We should make the ones we have as good as we can for as long as they last, not promise to "love" each other till "death do we part." We are caught in the evolutionary trap of being instinctually tribal but culturally reclusive (nuclear family).

Pangloss62 wrote:

They would? Wasn't (and isn't) the struggle for Civil Rights about NOT following current legal standards and going against your peers? People had to break laws to change them to a more rational view. It was irrational to segregate humans based upon race. Segregation's irrationality is what allowed it to be attacked in the first place. You have it all backwards.

Why is it irrational to segregate humans based upon race? I'm a white guy in the 1940s. I benefit from it.

You're still fooling yourself. The philosophy that all men are equal is a belief. You can call it a principle if you like, but you believe in the principle.

Why is it irrational to segregate humans based upon race? I'm a white guy in the 1940s. I benefit from it. You're still fooling yourself. The philosophy that all men are equal is a belief. You can call it a principle if you like, but you believe in the principle.

As I pointed out before, the application of the Categorical Imperative is the basis for making "rational" decisions. The irrationality in segregation relates to the "overall" impact to human society, which can be shown to be negative, not just for those discriminated against, but for everyone. It is self evident that all men are NOT created equal; that is a rational statement. I don't "believe" in principles, I follow them and advocate them based upon their proven outcome. One can act upon a principle, while beliefs can only remain just that. You have it backwards again. I would reverse your statement and say "You can call it a belief if you like, but if you take actions based upon a belief, and it results in a positive outcome for society, it becomes a rational truth." The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

You said before that "Doing the rational thing is not always the right thing." Rationality does not involve morality (right & wrong), and although Kant did relate morality to actions, he asserted that only those maxims you'd be willing for everyone (not just yourself) to act were morally acceptable; it is always based on the net benefit to all.

There are to many examples of such actions to cite here. Some have argued that mercy killing is morally wrong, but others (including those being killed) see it as a very rational act. The one's who think otherwise are burdened with "beliefs."

Your children look to you for what to believe. When they reach an age that they start forming their own beliefs based on their own experiences, they will critically examine the beliefs you taught them and draw their own conclusions.

Until then, if you don't teach your children "what to believe", someone else will. Your kids are bombarded every day with messages about what they should believe. What good are you doing if you eliminate parental input? Is it somehow healthier for your kids to get their worldview from the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon than from your own example/advice? I think not.

mrnoodle wrote:

Your children look to you for what to believe. When they reach an age that they start forming their own beliefs based on their own experiences, they will critically examine the beliefs you taught them and draw their own conclusions.

Teach them critical judgement and empathy. All else follows from that, the Golden Rule included.

Pie wrote:

Teach them critical judgement and empathy. All else follows from that, the Golden Rule included.

That's great, starting around the age of 7. But a 2-year-old is not capable of that. His world consists of doing things for no other reason than because someone (hopefully a parent) said so; belief in their higher power if you will. You can fill in the whys and the rationality behind it down the road, but if you haven't instilled a framework of behavior long before then, you'll never get the opportunity.

but if you haven't instilled a framework of behavior long before then, you'll never get the opportunity.

Just make sure it's a rational framework.:neutral:

No, as a two-year-old, I was asked to consider other people's feelings. See here:

"Don't hit him -- how would you feel if he hit you?"

Let's try it again, Pangloss. Without reference to "right", "wrong", or morals -- why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?

why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?

To make for a better society. It's the idea of doing something because you don't have to, hoping that someone might do something for you some day. It takes a lot of conscience raising to get to that point

It sounds like you might be one of those Ayn Rand Libertatians. Is that true?:eek:

I can't say more than I've said, and I'm not going to change any minds, especially those with kids. Just think about the debate, the ideas, and maybe we can all get somthing out of it.:neutral:

Clodfobble wrote:

That's great, starting around the age of 7. But a 2-year-old is not capable of that. His world consists of doing things for no other reason than because someone (hopefully a parent) said so; belief in their higher power if you will. You can fill in the whys and the rationality behind it down the road, but if you haven't instilled a framework of behavior long before then, you'll never get the opportunity.

My son was perfectly capable of empathy and self sacrifice at two. I have never taught him of a higher power, what is right and doing for others what you would want them to do for you is more than enough, and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

I saw Herbie Hancock on CSPAN the other night. He's a Buddhist.:)

I have to say I like his old stuff better than his 80s 90s stuff, but he's a good keyboardist.


So, rkzen, would you say that "The Golden Rule" is a parallel concept to a tenet/s of Buddhism?:neutral:

Yes, it is. The difference is that there is no "them" in Buddhism. No separation between "others" and the self. Whatever you are doing to someone else you are doing to yourself, so any harm is done directly to all and yourself simultaneously.
This is why Buddhists like Quantum Mechanics so much, we knew it thousands of years ago, unity and entanglement were always our "laws".

rkzenrage wrote:

I have never taught him of a higher power, what is right and doing for others what you would want them to do for you is more than enough, and has been for billions of Buddhists all over the world.

But that's exactly the point, you taught your son what was right. You don't have to teach him about a higher power, but at some point morals (i.e., something beyond critical thinking and rationality) must enter into it with young children. Pangloss seems to be claiming you don't need to teach them morals, just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own. :rolleyes:

Clodfobble wrote:

...just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own. :rolleyes:

Trying to be rational with anyone under the age of twenty two is about as successful as pissing up a rope.

Yet, it seems to be popular.:eyebrow:

That is not true at all.

Pangloss seems to be claiming you don't need to teach them morals, just teach the two-year-old rationality and they can figure out what to do on their own.

I would say teach them to think about their decisions and the consequences that follow. "Morality" is so subjective, and varies from culture to culture. Even the Ten Commandments are fallible in terms of civil law. I suppose with the 2-year old you may think it's better to start out simple and say things like:

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not cheat.

Do not kill.

But in the end, I think it would be better to show them why not to do these things, rather than just have these definitive dos and don'ts.

If there were moral absolutes, you would think there would be some sort of mechanism that would punish or censure ALL those who commit immoral acts. But this is not the case. There is not much of a reason NOT to do something simply because you are told that it's "wrong." For the parent, this means that they need to think about punishment for what they deem to be their childrens' immoral behavior. In other words, it isn't enough to say "That was bad, Billy. Don't do it again." Therefore you take a strap to their rear end; cause some pain. They then learn that the consequence for that action is pain, always a good reason not to do something. The time-out thing has run its course. Corporal punishment is the consequence for what you would call an immoral act, and even in the mind of a 2-year old, knowing not to do something for fear of the punishment is a pretty rational thought process. I think they've shown this cognitive process using rats

footfootfoot wrote:

Trying to be rational with anyone under the age of twenty two is about as successful as pissing up a rope.

Yet, it seems to be popular.:eyebrow:

Because being rational with your kids, even when they are acting irrationally, teaches them to be rational.

pissing up a rope.

That is one whacked analogy.:neutral:

Where does it come from?

Google does not seem to lead to any authoratative sources on this matter.

Pangloss62 wrote:

I would say teach them to think about their decisions and the consequences that follow. "Morality" is so subjective, and varies from culture to culture. Even the Ten Commandments are fallible in terms of civil law. I suppose with the 2-year old you may think it's better to start out simple and say things like:

Do not lie.

Do not steal.

Do not cheat.

Do not kill.

But in the end, I think it would be better to show them why not to do these things, rather than just have these definitive dos and don'ts.

If there were moral absolutes, you would think there would be some sort of mechanism that would punish or censure ALL those who commit immoral acts. But this is not the case. There is not much of a reason NOT to do something simply because you are told that it's "wrong." For the parent, this means that they need to think about punishment for what they deem to be their childrens' immoral behavior. In other words, it isn't enough to say "That was bad, Billy. Don't do it again." Therefore you take a strap to their rear end; cause some pain. They then learn that the consequence for that action is pain, always a good reason not to do something. The time-out thing has run its course. Corporal punishment is the consequence for what you would call an immoral act, and even in the mind of a 2-year old, knowing not to do something for fear of the punishment is a pretty rational thought process. I think they've shown this cognitive process using rats

Exactly, if you just teach absolutes people can always justify their way out of obeying them, or twist it around so that the rule does not mean what it means. This is why we always have religious purges like Crusades, Ethnic Cleansings, Genocide, God's war on Iraq, and the like... if there is not moral relevance then you can weasel your way out of anything, ethically.

So who's morals do you suggest we teach?

I suggest that parents not teach morals at all. But that is just a suggestion. Most parents will likely continue to teach morals regardless of what I think.

And what do I know? I'm just a caveman. This world frightens and confuses me. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts.:neutral:

9th Engineer wrote:

So who's morals do you suggest we teach?

I teach behavior and empathy to my son.
I don't believe in a "who".

It is so ironic to me that people have such a hard time believing that we atheists teach our kids morals and decent behavior just fine.
Just like millions of the atheist Buddhists have for thousands of years while people like Oral Robers, Jerry Falwell, the Christian Identity movement and Conservative Islamists teach hate and immorality just fine to their kids... just makes no sense.

footfootfoot wrote:

Trying to be rational with anyone under the age of twenty two is about as successful as pissing up a rope.

Yet, it seems to be popular.:eyebrow:

Hey, whoaaa, watch it!

...I try, at least...

Ok headache's all better. I'm ready to bang my head against the wall again.

I said "why should the individual give up something for the greater good of everyone?" You said:

Pangloss62 wrote:

To make for a better society. It's the idea of doing something because you don't have to, hoping that someone might do something for you some day. It takes a lot of conscience raising to get to that point

Call it a tenet or whatever you like if it's the word that bugs you, but doesn't that statement indicate that you believe (or have as a moral standard, or whatever) that a person should sacrifice their own benefit to make for a better society?

[youtube]y_EKHK1C2IE[/youtube]

but doesn't that statement indicate that you believe (or have as a moral standard, or whatever) that a person should sacrifice their own benefit to make for a better society?

:banghead:

It's not a "belief," but a rational choice in order to create a preferred outcome. There are no morals involved. It's not a "tenet," it's a Catagorical Imperitive.

I'm done.

Don't bang your head anymore, dar.:D

I just wanted to point 1 thing out about the movie and its content. This kind of thing has been going on for quite some time, its not a new development.

If these kids are being indoctrinated at such a young age so succesfully, where are they in their older years? Most likely by the time they are 17+ most of those kids will have the perspective that they are missing. There are always fringe groups and fanatics, but by and large, the world as a whole is not represented thusly.

Part of growing up and becoming an adult is analyzing your parents, their belief structure included, and figuring out if you agree and if it makes sense. This is where alot of children start to internalize pathos, ethos and logos.

Personaly I went to a christian school as a young boy until the age of 8 or 9, when the priests and I fell out badly due to my questions and their anger. That situation has been a defining moment in my life since then. As a college debater I was driven by the need to know, then exited the scene understanding that there is no "know" there is only perspective.

I think organized religion is a cheaters way out. We weren't meant to follow a book to god, we have to find it in our way, each of us. That book takes all the discourse out of it. How do you sit on a rock in the middle of no where and talk to god if all the answers are in that book? Its so easy to be told that these are the rules god laid out, now be a good boy. It just doesn't give much room for spiritual progression or enlightenment. Personaly, I have never felt the presence of god around other people or their creations, only when I am in the deep outdoors all by myself do I feel the presence of divinity.

Religion as a tool has many implications, good and bad, read the entire Dune series. Its not the idea of religion or god that makes it painfull, its mans interpretation to others that makes it painfull.

If some of you are looking for an interesting read check this out, Living Buddha, Living Christ This showcases the similarities and provides a historical basis for how the thoughts and perspectives of buddhism could have traveled to JC and been a part of his world as a young man.

Right and wrong are issues of perspective.

Harmony is more important.

Steve

Oh come on, Pangloss -- you don't stop at the one nor the other; you do the both. They get the dos and don'ts and they get the reasoning behind them, in that order and in their due time. Which I think you say later on, if phrasing it vaguely.

I'm of footfootfoot's view about the rationality of the young. With the young, it is a triumph of emotion over experience. As you age, that ratio changes.

theirontower wrote:

Personally I went to a Christian school as a young boy until the age of 8 or 9, when the priests and I fell out badly due to my questions and their anger. That situation has been a defining moment in my life since then. As a college debater I was driven by the need to know, then exited the scene understanding that there is no "know" there is only perspective.

This sort of thing makes me sad -- though, and especially since, it needn't happen. The godly way of life bears explanation. Perhaps you should not have taken their impatience, though, for not having an answer. One of those priests probably did, but you didn't find him nor hear it. It's the sort of thing one can often better follow or understand with an adult mind.

I think organized religion is a cheater's way out. We weren't meant to follow a book to god, we have to find it in our way, each of us. That book takes all the discourse out of it. How do you sit on a rock in the middle of no where and talk to god if all the answers are in that book? Its so easy to be told that these are the rules god laid out, now be a good boy. It just doesn't give much room for spiritual progression or enlightenment. Personally, I have never felt the presence of god around other people or their creations, only when I am in the deep outdoors all by myself do I feel the presence of divinity.

Offhand, I'd say you've the makings of a good Unitarian. Other denominations encourage thinking, but you have to work your brains to make Unitarianism a strong faith. That book, though, does have the ability to help clarify your thinking, suggest questions to consider and, aye, to meditate upon. Most sacred texts have that property, and I suppose one may do as well as another. There was a time when I thought as you do, but now I'm finding more and more good stuff in the philosophical verses of the Bible (the legalistic ones being mainly relevant to that time and that place). I'm particularly fond of, if but little schooled in, Proverbs and the Psalms this way. I just read through Ps. 18, just for fun. There are times when one must remark, with James Michener, "Ours is a very gutsy religion."

Right and wrong are issues of perspective.

Harmony is more important.

Steve

Some are moral absolutists, some are not. I am. And harmony only reliably occurs associated with good in any case.