Religious Discrimination in the USA
A student in North Carolina was
suspended from school because of his religious beliefs. Although religious beliefs are not explicitly disouraged, it appears one has to adhere to the
correct religion, to avoid being singled out and harassed.
School officials claim that their "decision to suspend Killian for a day has nothing to do with his religion, and quite a lot to do with his repeated refusal to heed warnings against wearing pirate outfits." Clearly some mandatory sensitivity training is in order here. They should have known that Pastafarians "acknowledge pirates as being 'absolute divine beings', and stress that the worldwide decline in the number of pirates has directly led to global warming."
I say: shame on you, hatemongers. It's people like this who want to undermine the values this great nation was founded on.
Hey, Monster...you should talk to this guy...
From its founding, the US has been a Pastafarian country don't deny the truth.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of his noodley appendage to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I thought it went "Ouija people, in order to form..."
And let's not confuse this with
noodling.
*snickers* "spagnostic" I love it.
their decision to suspend Killian for a day has nothing to do with his religion, and quite a lot to do with his repeated refusal to heed warnings against wearing pirate outfits.
That bit made me laugh .
Maybe he thought it was Sept 19th? :D
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/Maybe he thought it was Sept 19th? :D
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/
Ha! We actually celebrated that here. Well, mostly Undertoad celebrated it.
Ha! We actually celebrated that here. Well, mostly Undertoad celebrated it.
I did too, drove the people at work crazy, but by the end of the day 4 or 5 others had joined in and we made the rest happy when the day ended.
... by the end of the day 4 or 5 others had joined in ...
To me, that's all that counts. 4 or 5 people is actually awesome results for something like that.
To me, that's all that counts. 4 or 5 people is actually awesome results for something like that.
It is
infectious...Yes, but you have to work to make it that way. For instance, if you Google the word SOUPFIG, you get plenty of hits, despite the fact that it's a nonsense word that I made up and subjected people to, until they started repeating it. You know, somebody has to initiate these things.
School officials claim that their "decision to suspend Killian for a day has nothing to do with his religion, and quite a lot to do with his repeated refusal to heed warnings against wearing pirate outfits."
Screw that,
pirates can do whatever they want! pirates can do whatever they want!
What's with the humping ninja?!
ha ha haScrew that, pirates can do whatever they want!
Pretty damm good animation.
Pretty damm good animation.
I wouldn't know.....I just got the song and a blank white screen.
file ended in .swf I don't know if you can download a codex to make it work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWFFreedom of religion means ANY religion.
I'm with the pirate/kid. If full pirate regalia is what is demanded by the holy FSM, then full pirate regalia it shall be!
NOPE-NOPE-NOPE!
Because if it's okay for a school to say the Muslim girl can't wear her full-face veil (which I believe it is), then it's okay for them to say the pirate kid can't wear his disruptive outfit.
Then I want the god squad kids around here to have to stop wearing their shirts that say "Body Piercing Saved My Life" in reference to the crucifixion.
NOPE-NOPE-NOPE!
Because if it's okay for a school to say the Muslim girl can't wear her full-face veil (which I believe it is), then it's okay for them to say the pirate kid can't wear his disruptive outfit.
:blush: I was being facetious. :blush:
besides, I thought the full face veil was a cultural thing? Anyway, the Muslim girls at our local HS wear the head scarf veil thing. Doesn't cover their faces, though.
Yeah, I wasn't pointing my finger directly at you, Bri. There was also that thread not too long ago about the girl with the Tigger socks at school...
You...you mean you can't wear Tigger socks at school?
If someone can wear their star of David or their cross, he can wear his costume.
Remove all religion, then remove it.
Allow it... then allow it.
I suspect that your point is that the Star of David and the Cross are symbols of something just as made up as the FSM.
Why can't he wear a pirate's outfit? He is just trying to make a scene and get attention but you can't disallow him from wearing it.
He's not one of the kids from that whackadoo Pirate family that was on Wife Swap a few weeks ago, was he?
I suspect that your point is that the Star of David and the Cross are symbols of something just as made up as the FSM.
It's all just made-up. It was not disguised as a point, I am saying it as a fact.
But as usual, your "facts" are you're bullshit opinion.
I suspect that your point is that the Star of David and the Cross are symbols of something just as made up as the FSM.
It's all just made-up. It was not disguised as a point, I am saying it as a fact.
But as usual, your "facts" are you're bullshit opinion.
All religions are something that somebody just made up. Of course, there's much more to it than that, and there are many more differences between various religions than there are similarities, but they all share that one core attribute: being something that somebody made up. This isn't even debatable; this is the definition of a fact. We can thrash around in the quagmire of semantics surrounding this fact, but it's not going anywhere.
All religions are something that somebody just made up.
But in "my" religion, (fillinblank), that somebody was God.
Who can rightfully say they are wrong?
How cool would that be, if we all got to make any statement we wanted to and everyone has to believes us because they can't prove a negative?
Court would be fun, huh?
I'm not saying that everyone should go around telling religious people that they can't believe what they want.
I am saying that if they are going to say one person's belief system is wrong, then they have to prove their own.
If someone can wear their star of David or their cross, he can wear his costume. ...
I suspect that your point is that the Star of David and the Cross are symbols of something just as made up as the FSM.
It's all just made-up. It was not disguised as a point, I am saying it as a fact.
But as usual, your "facts" are you're bullshit opinion.
All religions are something that somebody just made up. ...
Who can rightfully say they are wrong?
If, by "they" you are including the kid in the pirate suit, then we're going in circles here. If not, we're back at square one.
It's ok for them to make him not wear his pirate suit. They probably don't allow veils or anything like that either. :)
I'm not saying that everyone should go around telling religious people that they can't believe what they want.
Except of course the religious people who believe that immoral behavior (sin) leads to negative consequences (hell)? Because according to you that's child abuse.
[size=1]I'm sorry your parents were overbearing and probably completely misinterpreted the concepts of sin and forgiveness in the Bible. But that doesn't make all teaching of the concept of an afterlife to be child abuse. You've alluded to other treatment you received which actually
is child abuse, and I think you've permanently associated the two, which is unfortunate.[/size]
If you let them take away the kid's right to wear a pirate suit, they'll follow up with making the hot chicks wear bras. Folks, that's downright unAmerican.
I hate you for even [COLOR="Red"]thinking [/COLOR]that!
Except of course the religious people who believe that immoral behavior (sin) leads to negative consequences (hell)? Because according to you that's child abuse.
[size=1]I'm sorry your parents were overbearing and probably completely misinterpreted the concepts of sin and forgiveness in the Bible. But that doesn't make all teaching of the concept of an afterlife to be child abuse. You've alluded to other treatment you received which actually is child abuse, and I think you've permanently associated the two, which is unfortunate.[/size]
I was not raised Christian or by religious parents of any kind... nice shot in the dark though, keep tryin'. :rolleyes:
I never said all concepts of the afterlife child abuse or anything of that nature. I made a very clear, specific, statement, if you read into that, that is your problem.
Belief and action are two, very different, things.
It is anyone's right to be a homophobe or racist... just not to act on it.
How cool would that be, if we all got to make any statement we wanted to and everyone has to believes us because they can't prove a negative?
Court would be fun, huh?
I'm not saying that everyone should go around telling religious people that they can't believe what they want.
I am saying that if they are going to say one person's belief system is wrong, then they have to prove their own.
That's why faith is in church and law is in court.
So what you're saying rkz is that it's fine to have faith in your own religion, just don't think you have the right to tell someone else their own religion and therefore faith is wrong because if you do then you're putting the onus of proof on yourself first?
As Bruce points out, religion is about faith. I guess many people have trouble with the concept of other people having faith in other things. Religious fervour is a problem in many ways, but in others it can be good.
I think that's important to remember when it comes to arguments like these that even though religion and government should be separate, religion serves a great purpose to many people.
If, by "they" you are including the kid in the pirate suit, then we're going in circles here. If not, we're back at square one.
C'mon, you know deep down this kid is shit stirring to the nth degree.
He thinks he's more clever than the school administration, and has found a loophole in the rules.
What he hasn't learned yet is the rules are fairly loose, don't cover all the possible loopholes because;
1- they become ponderous and
2-The school administration can do anything they want. Change rules, enforce or not enforce them, makes new ones retroactive, on a whim. That's how kids learn that life ain't fair and power corrupts.
Hey, Monster...you should talk to this guy...
moi? *looks round for other monsters...*
Hell, I have a zillion opinions on this.
10) Piratin' clothes should be school uniform.
20) Hubby (beest) should dress like a pirate for work. And at other times
30) still thinking about line 20 *drool*
40) have middle kid's pirate-theme birthday party next week -need all the inspiration I can get
50) coffee moms suggested I should dress beest as pirate
60) goto 20
70) if program fucked up and you got past of images of beest as pirate (good, all the more images for me), then the school was right. If the clothing is disruptive towards education in any way, then it is not appropriate for school, regardles of the reasons for wearing it. However, if the school allows other disruptive clothing -regarless of the reasons for wearing it, then the kid is right to claim discrimination. Aaaarrrrrr.
My son wore this outfit to school one day.
[ATTACH]12335[/ATTACH]
Cause it was a free dress day and he wanted to. I think he put shoes on though. I'm pretty sure he didn't wear sox and thongs to school, although sox and thongs is rather formal for us here.
It is a little hard for me to truly comment on this because at my kids' school, pirate dress -whilst not "common" is not unseen and would not be disruptive. nor would any other outfit. Something really unusual might form a topic for discussion/research, but I can't say I think that's a bad thing. My son went dressed as superman one day (my shy retiring son). For no other reason than he wanted to. The class had impromptu lesson about flight and whether/how a person (not necessarily human) could really do it. And he fell between sofas and bumped his head and learned that dressing the part only goes so far..... And they discussed Krypronite and rocks that look like it. He's second grade. there's a lot to be said for Open Schooling.....
Cause it was a free dress day and he wanted to. I think he put shoes on though. I'm pretty sure he didn't wear sox and thongs to school, although sox and thongs is rather formal for us here.
OK, planned day for everyone, that's cool.
@Monster. They discussed "Krypronite" padlocks or pot?
It'd be against the uniform policy for him to wear it on normal school days. ;o)
OK, planned day for everyone, that's cool.
@Monster. They discussed "Krypronite" padlocks or pot?
Green crystalline structures, as far as I can tell. He came home interested in geology and in next time making sure that the underpants he wears on the outside are bigger than the pants. Works for me. I take him to pot class on Sundays.
Green crystalline? I thought kryptonite was a fictitious comic book invention, but I Googled it in case some scientist was also a Superman freak and used it for something discovered or created in the lab.
I tried both my spelling and yours and came up with padlocks and slang for a type of black pot. Therefore, I have no idea what the kids were being taught was kryptonite. Jello?
Green crystalline? I thought kryptonite was a fictitious comic book invention, but I Googled it in case some scientist was also a Superman freak and used it for something discovered or created in the lab.
I tried both my spelling and yours and came up with padlocks and slang for a type of black pot. Therefore, I have no idea what the kids were being taught was kryptonite. Jello?
Ya know, I just don't care that much as long as they come home with real information and an excitement about it. The kids in Hector's class see Kryptonite as a green version of the crystal caves in IOTD as far as I can tell, I am not au fait with superman, I may have used the wrong spelling -pah! He went to school with his underpants outside his trousers and came home talking about the properties of quartz and aerodynamics and lift. Works for me.
What he hasn't learned yet is the rules are fairly loose, don't cover all the possible loopholes because;
1- they become ponderous and
2-The school administration can do anything they want. Change rules, enforce or not enforce them, makes new ones retroactive, on a whim. That's how kids learn that life ain't fair and power corrupts.
Well said. It is just that stupid rebellious stage. He is just doing this for attention so if the school's put it down quietly, he will go away.
So what you're saying rkz is that it's fine to have faith in your own religion, just don't think you have the right to tell someone else their own religion and therefore faith is wrong because if you do then you're putting the onus of proof on yourself first?
As Bruce points out, religion is about faith. I guess many people have trouble with the concept of other people having faith in other things. Religious fervour is a problem in many ways, but in others it can be good.
I think that's important to remember when it comes to arguments like these that even though religion and government should be separate, religion serves a great purpose to many people.
No, I advocate the
complete separation of church and state.
If you want your kid exposed to religion in school, send them to a private school of your religious background.
But, if
one is allowed into the schools,
all must be
equally.
I don't care what someone believes, I only care
how they act upon their beliefs.
I don't get it.
Specifically "proving" and "six more millenia"
I assume this is the resurrection?
As his return wouldn't mention the tomb.
That's why faith is in church and law is in court.
Good, now let's get rid of all vestiges of faith from the courts.
I never said all concepts of the afterlife child abuse or anything of that nature. I made a very clear, specific, statement, if you read into that, that is your problem.
I read nothing into it, I never mentioned "all concepts of the afterlife"--you said that
teaching a child that sinning leads to hell is child abuse. But the fact remains that other people teaching their children such things in the privacy of their homes does not influence your life at all, so you should be leaving them and the topic well enough alone. You said,
I'm not saying that everyone should go around telling religious people that they can't believe what they want.
yet you apparently feel that you should go around telling religious people that what they believe is child abuse? That's a pretty serious charge, and implies that you think their children should be taken away from them, which is equivalent to telling them they can't believe what they want in my book.
I said nothing of the sort... I said if they did certain things it was child abuse, not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
If you cannot reconcile what is in your head and what you do, there is no hope.
All religions are something that somebody just made up. Of course, there's much more to it than that, and there are many more differences between various religions than there are similarities, but they all share that one core attribute: being something that somebody made up. This isn't even debatable; this is the definition of a fact. We can thrash around in the quagmire of semantics surrounding this fact, but it's not going anywhere.
Every time man creates a new religion, the universe creates a new reality.
And every time man creates a new scientific theory, the universe creates a new reality.
This is the problem with a multi-threaded universe.
But I still think that religion is primarily a means by which the few at the top can control the masses crawling through the mud at their feet. And god, any god, is an adult version of Santa Claus.
Good, now let's get rid of all vestiges of faith from the courts.
There is no faith. Do YOU have faith in the courts?
Swearing on the Bible (which I would not do for jury duty) and many still have the ten commandments.
The Supreme Court has all kinds of religious imagery all over the room and building, it is insane and ridiculous.
No, I advocate the complete separation of church and state.
If you want your kid exposed to religion in school, send them to a private school of your religious background.
So they learn just the one persepective? That is ridiculously short-sighted. I quote myself from
here
I think not teaching religion in the schools is the most ridiculous idea. Religion is such a huge part of so many people's lives it's no wonder there's so much disquiet when so many people know so little about people of different religions -their neighbors, their doctors, their police officers.... American schools need a decent non-denominational comparative religion program. And it shouldn't be optional. If your religion isn't strong enough that you can hear about others without wavering from your path/becoming impure/whatever, then you have no moral right to make demands on behalf of that religion. It's perfectly possible to teach about what some people belive without teaching that it is right or wrong.
/soapbox
No, they learn no perspective. Religion is left out of it all together.
That it is a large part of someone's life does not mean it is their right to make it part of everyone's day around them.
No, they learn no perspective. Religion is left out of it all together.
That it is a large part of someone's life does not mean it is their right to make it part of everyone's day around them.
The majority of Americans have some religious belief. How is it beneficial to a child to be blinkered from this? How is it beneficial to socety to bring up children who do not understand one another's home lives? Humans are social, society comes from integration. If a child is taught nothing about religion and beliefs, how are they expected to interact with those who have different beliefs? If a child is taught only about one paradigm, how are they to integrate?
I believe that there is no such thing as a god. I believe in the big bang -or something like it- and evolution. I was brought up as a christian, but not strictly so. I am comfortable in my beliefs. Mostly because I worked them out for myself. I want my children to do the same. I talk to them about religion, I tell them what others believe, but it's hard because I don't believe it. I'd rather they learned it in a neutral setting, so they can make up their own minds.
....isn't your approach to religious education a little like the "let's pretend sex doesn't exist" approach to hoping your teenager doesn't become a parent?
Nope, I can prove sex.
Kids can learn about religion from their parents. If parents want their kids to learn religion in school they should send them to a religious school.
If they do not learn about it in school, you can ensure they do learn about it in a neutral setting.
Though I have really have no issue if it is really taught along side many other religions with complete equality and never said to be true or not or more valid or relevant than any other religion & doing so was a termination offense.
Surely though rkzenrage and Monster, there's a difference between having a faith (usually Christianity) wrapped around and embedded in all parts of a child's education, and a set lesson for Religious Education?
In the UK in most state secondary schools, for example, (except the faith schools but that's a different discussion :P) there is very little religion involved in the day to day running of the school: there are no morning prayers, no hymns sung at assembly, absolutely no religious imagery around the school except at times of festival (and we tend to do that with other religious festivals not just christianity).
What there is compulsory R.E. In R.E, most children learn about the major, and even some of the minor, religions. They learn about the origins and practices of those religions; they also learn about some of the major discussion points/points of contention in those religions.
That is not indoctrination or inculcation. It does however provide a good understanding of religion generally and of some faiths specifically. It also only becomes a compulsory part of the curriculum when the kids reach 11 years old.
you said that teaching a child that sinning leads to hell is child abuse.
I said nothing of the sort... I said if they did certain things it was child abuse, not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
teaching children that if they sin they will go to hell, which is child abuse
Telling a child that if they sin they will go to hell is child abuse.
Please show me where you are specifying certain things in these statements.
Religion studies should be tied in with history but that is learning about the religion, like we do about buddhism or hinduism now.
Please show me where you are specifying certain things in these statements.
Nice misquote, the second quote was in response to the statement that I said religion was child abuse. Teaching kids that if they sin they will suffer in hell is child abuse. If your religion does not teach that, it may not be abusive.
Teaching kids that if they sin they will suffer in hell is child abuse. If your religion does not teach that, it may not be abusive.
Never heard of a religion that teaches that.
Swearing on the Bible (which I would not do for jury duty) and many still have the ten commandments.
The Supreme Court has all kinds of religious imagery all over the room and building, it is insane and ridiculous.
You admit you didn't have to do that. You doubt it has a positive effect on people that believe it matters?
OK, so we have to tear down all the buildings and rewrite history because you can't see past that stuff like everyone else does. Your share will be 3 billion dollars... get it up and we'll start.
Never heard of a religion that teaches that.
Have you ever been to a catholic mass Bruce? lol
Over here you can simply take an oath instead of swearing on the bible if you choose.
We are a pretty godless country here though. We're all going to hell. Lucky we're used to warm weather really.
You admit you didn't have to do that. You doubt it has a positive effect on people that believe it matters?
OK, so we have to tear down all the buildings and rewrite history because you can't see past that stuff like everyone else does. Your share will be 3 billion dollars... get it up and we'll start.
Nope, I don't admit that at all... I was rejected.
Not all buildings, just remove religion from facades on government buildings.
Have you ever been to a catholic mass Bruce? lol
Yes I have. Where in the catholic mass does it tell children if they sin they will go to hell?
Over here you can simply take an oath instead of swearing on the bible if you choose.
It's the same here.
Nope, I don't admit that at all... I was rejected.
Not all buildings, just remove religion from facades on government buildings.
A lot of people are rejected, I suspect they decided to boot you out when you asked the Judge to present his Sheep Skin and a transcript of his grades.
Who decides what symbols are religious? How about a sheep or sheave of wheat? I've seen them in a lot of religious documents. Oh, and the scales of justice....looks like a cross to me. Books might have the same words some bibles do. Any other Bogey-mans only you can see?
Yes I have. Where in the catholic mass does it tell children if they sin they will go to hell?
Don't know about the mass, but I do know that my Catholic relatives were quite convinced that without regular confession we'd go to hell and burn. My grandma was genuinely frightened for me because I said I didn't believe in God, she really did believe that I would be going to hell.
I have Catholic friends who were raised with images of hell and torment as the price of sinning.
Thing is......I understand why rkzenrage sees that as abusive, I think religion is a damaging force in peoples' lives and a damaging element in childhood. But at the same time, if those people really believe that their child will suffer eternal torment in hell should they stray too far from a given path, then it would actually be abusive of them not to inculcate their children in the ways of salvation. For those who believe, then it is their absolute duty to ensure their child's well-being and that includes the well-being of their souls.
From a psychological perspective, however, I do think such a focus on sin and retribution is potentially damaging to a growing mind. As long as parents believe in it though, children will be raised in it.
I have Catholic friends who were raised with images of hell and torment as the price of sinning.
See this is what happens when observing from the outside, you completely miss the part about all you have to do is ask to be forgiven and you get a get-out-of-going-to-hell-free card.
The premise is, if you be bad you'll burn unless you realize and admit you be bad. Many don't get it, they'd rather whine about child abuse that find the truth. sigh
btw, there are a bevy of what
I consider legitimate beefs against the RC Church, but this ain't one of them.
See this is what happens when observing from the outside, you completely miss the part about all you have to do is ask to be forgiven and you get a get-out-of-going-to-hell-free card.
From the outside? My dad was a RC and my Gran was devout. I spent a lot of time growing up around my gran. Been on more pilgrimages than you can shake a stick at. When she was wheelchair bound I would on occassion take her to the local church for mass (the Father would come out to her when she couldn't make it, but she did get some comfort from attending with the rest of the congregation when she was able to). So....no I wasn't raised a Catholic. But nor was I entirely observing from outside.
I fully understand the get-out-of-jail-free card. But....there are complications to that which a seven year old will tend to pick up on. For instance, what if you sin and are knocked over before you get the chance to go to confession? What if there is no priest around to deliver the last rites? When i was about 9 years old my next door neighbour and best friend (also occassionally best enemy ;P) Maggs, used to really fret about stuff like that.
The premise is, if you be bad you'll burn unless you realize and admit you be bad.
I have some difficulty with the idea of teaching children that they are bad if they do something wrong. This may just be a word usage thing, but to me the idea of a child 'being bad' as opposed to 'doing something wrong' is potentially damaging. Just the way I look at things. That's one reason I don't like most religions and moral codes, they employ too many value judgements about the person rather than the action.
Nice misquote....
????
She nailed you. She said you had said something. You denied it, and she quoted and linked to two places where you had said it. How is that a misquote? The words are right there on the screen. You typed them.
I suspect it's because he keeps thinking that I'm trying to parlay his comment into a larger condemnation of religion on his part, because as far as he can see there is nothing wrong with what he is saying so clearly I must be accusing him of something grander.
You're not seeing what's right in front of you, rkz. I'm saying that teaching children that sin can lead to hell is not de facto child abuse. Period.
????
She nailed you. She said you had said something. You denied it, and she quoted and linked to two places where you had said it. How is that a misquote? The words are right there on the screen. You typed them.
The response she used of mine was not to the quote above it in her post.
It was to the statement that religion was child abuse, which I never stated.
Telling children that sinning will lead to their eternal torture is child abuse and I stand by that statement... that is not the same as "religion".
It's the same here.
A lot of people are rejected, I suspect they decided to boot you out when you asked the Judge to present his Sheep Skin and a transcript of his grades.
Who decides what symbols are religious? How about a sheep or sheave of wheat? I've seen them in a lot of religious documents. Oh, and the scales of justice....looks like a cross to me. Books might have the same words some bibles do. Any other Bogey-mans only you can see?
Keep reachin'.
I agree with Dana here. Having been raised catholic by a very conservative family, I always thought I was going to hell just for wishing my brother would get a hiding for being a shit to me.
The thing is, if you sin and don't get to confess before you die, you'll go to hell. That's what you think about it when you're a child.
From the outside? My dad was a RC and my Gran was devout. I spent a lot of time growing up around my gran. Been on more pilgrimages than you can shake a stick at. When she was wheelchair bound I would on occassion take her to the local church for mass (the Father would come out to her when she couldn't make it, but she did get some comfort from attending with the rest of the congregation when she was able to). So....no I wasn't raised a Catholic. But nor was I entirely observing from outside.
Observing is not practicing. I took a wooden boat down the Colorado river. It ain't the same on PBS (tv).
I fully understand the get-out-of-jail-free card. But....there are complications to that which a seven year old will tend to pick up on. For instance, what if you sin and are knocked over before you get the chance to go to confession? What if there is no priest around to deliver the last rites? When i was about 9 years old my next door neighbour and best friend (also occassionally best enemy ;P) Maggs, used to really fret about stuff like that.
Aren't 9 year old girls worried about a million things?
I have some difficulty with the idea of teaching children that they are bad if they do something wrong. This may just be a word usage thing, but to me the idea of a child 'being bad' as opposed to 'doing something wrong' is potentially damaging. Just the way I look at things. That's one reason I don't like most religions and moral codes, they employ too many value judgements about the person rather than the action.
My bad, I used the slang "be bad" for misbehaving, which seems to have confused you. I apologize.
If a parent is going to freak their kid with heavy duty fire and brimstone, don't you think they would be the type to freak the kid with something else if hell were not an option. What's the difference between;
If you get out of that bed you'll burn in hell.
and
If you get out of that bed the monster under the bed will eat your feet.
My bad, I used the slang "be bad" for misbehaving, which seems to have confused you. I apologize.
If a parent is going to freak their kid with heavy duty fire and brimstone, don't you think they would be the type to freak the kid with something else if hell were not an option. What's the difference between;
If you get out of that bed you'll burn in hell.
and
If you get out of that bed the monster under the bed will eat your feet.
I totally agree.
