Aye. I suppose it would be worth doing a quick summary for jester so he understands what I've been asking and why I've been asking it. All in good time I guess..
Rhetorical questions escape you, it seems. You seem to be stuck on this throughout your post. I was actually saying it with the hope that you had read history extensively, so that you could better understand my position. I suppose this was entirely lost upon you.
Piss taking at the expense of someone that made a rather stupid opening statement seems to escape you.
History is no standard by which to compare the fundamentals of human nature? I guess we should just ignore it, then. This is patently ridiculous. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about all of human history.
You very well might be, but what you're obviously failing to grasp is that I wasn't, before Baum jumped in and started waffling about how "The church doesn't do that!", when I'd never even mentioned churches, and ended up going on about tribe a and if we didn't all force our kids into specific belief then they'd have no friends, (something I still await either of you to justify). Kenny seemed to understand, indeed asking Baum what his tribe nonsense had to do with "
forced religious indoctrination in
modern society", to which Baum mentioned hot dogs and baseball, (and I too have mentioned football) - while the pair of you seem blissfully unaware that I am not talking about teaching children but forcing belief upon them.
By all means teach children about football, baseball and hot dogs. Don't force them to watch football and eat hotdogs.
If you disagree with that statement, (under Baum's original basis that not forcing them will mean they have no friends), then once again I ask you to justify it. Once that is done we can move on to history and the effects of forced belief and
if that still applies in a vastly multicultural country in the year 2006.
It is often said that football is the religion of England. Are you saying that if I don't force feed football team worship to my son that he will have no friends? That's what Baum is saying and that is what I am questioning. Worth pointing out perhaps that I hate football, have never liked it - but yes, do understand the game. Whether it's believed or not, I do have friends, (many of whom are serious football fans funnily enough).
Funnily enough I also have jewish friends, scientologist friends, hindu friends etc and yet I have never been force fed to believe in their specific religions or gods. Your entire post crumbles to dust on this very statement.
I was talking about the nature of humanity reaching back into the darkest depths of time.
That's really very interesting, but once again does not really answer the questions I posed or offer much in the way of value to my original statement.
They come from people, and you're condemnation of those values, and of instilling them in young children, is no different or more noble than the condemnation of one group of people by another.
The Saturday paedophile club would give you a big "bravo".
Forget about the ultimate truth or falsity of the particular belief of a religion.
Forget? Wtf.. surely that's the most important thing? I'm sorry, is that what goes through your mind while you brain fuck your child into believing in whatever you tell him to?
"I'm a leprechaunist.. forget if it's true or not son. Believe it or else"
--------
"Well son, there's many different religions that have different beliefs. Here's a list. What do you think?"
*child starts using their own brain*
"well dad, I think..."
That is education, the former one was force fed belief. You seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between the two, (possibly because you're stuck in the deepest, darkest pits of human history).
You're arguing against religious indoctrination (or so it seems), not against indoctrination of a specific (as in, Christianity, for instance, or Islam) belief system.
My original statement was concerned with
forcing someone to believe or do something, (not that they should never get an education as you seemingly think). This applies not just to religious belief, (although given religious beliefs common "forget if it's true or not" attitude which quite frankly is not the way humans should go through life makes it all the more pertinent), but to
forced belief of just about anything. It is the very fact that it isn't "forced" which still allows Texas halfwits to go around claiming evolution is hokum. Now, to go back to the original question and my statement:
"If a bunch of fisherman want to talk about fishing what's wrong with it?"
My response: Nothing, as long as they do not force everyone else to fish.
I went on to explain that a week after a child is born, many parents assign what that child will or will not believe. By heck, if your parents believe in leprechauns so will you. The rebuttal to that is that if they don't you wont have any friends, wont survive and will probably jump off a very large building sometime soon. I ask for justification of those claims. At the registry of my daughters birth I told the woman I didn't know my childs religion, but promised to come back in 20 years time when my daughter has figured it out for herself. My daughter has friends, she's not suicidal and she's surviving quite comfortably. You and Baum seem to think that's impossible, so justify it.
What I'm saying is that neither of us made this into a moral issue, and you are forcing it into one.
I didn't force anything, I made a statement that has been understood by some and not understood by others. I have not, as Baum claims, had a pop at churches, nor have I made statements against educating children as you seem to believe. What I want from you is justification to
force a specific belief in a specific deity to a child that is not even old enough to say "goo goo". Saying that its justified because they did it in the deepest, darkest locations on earth 2000 years ago is not really an answer.
What are we to do? Teach children nothing at all?
Now you're being extremely silly or just oblivious to what I've been saying.
It is warranted, and in deeply religious societies it is equally essential.
Deeply religious societies heh. I understand and agree with that, (although do personally hope the trend is broken eventually). I have not disputed that in the poorer, less educated nations where religiosity is high, (this seems to include the US, which although not poor or specifically uneducated, is the anomaly with a high religiosity rate), that right now kids might indeed be alienated without sharing that belief. Let's instead look at the majority of first world nations.
Statistically speaking concerning religious importance.. The trend is thus:
Senegal 97% (yes, a child here might very well be alienated)
Indonesia/Nigeria/India/Pakistan/Mali/Ivory Coast 90-95% (same as above)
Some more African nations in the 80's
South American nations in the 60's
The anomalous USA with 59%
Then you have a massive gap...
European nations from the mid 30's all the way down to 11%.
Now, if we were to concentrate on the European nations for now, do you still ascribe to the idea that if religious belief is not forced then the child will have no friends? Do you still indeed consider it "essential to survival"?
(this is what I seek answer to)
Take into account that for this debate I am:
A)
Not talking about baseball, football, or hot dogs
B)
Not talking about not 'educating' children, but as it has always been,
forcing belief
and C)
Not talking about 1000 years ago.
As I said before, if you absolutely believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that your particular religious belief is going to be the most important factor in your child's life, how can you not teach them about it?
There's the thing though, it's nothing to do with not "teaching". And here's the other thing, I can almost guarantee you that if, for arguments sake, you were a deeply religious christian and found out the local school was forcing islamic belief on your child, you'd understand what I've been saying. It remains however, that neither of you are in the right, (and undoubtedly fixed with that "forget whats true or not" attitude), while ensuring your child grows up believing whatever you want it to believe - with no regard whatsoever for your own child's future thoughts or feelings on the matter.
This then leads to 'alienation' when your own child grows up a tad and decides it doesn't want to be what you have tried to ensure it would be by force feeding it 'junk thoughts' for the majority of it's early life. And that there is the beef of the issue.. My daughters father loves his alcohol. He loves to crack open a few beers/bottles of wine and enjoy what they have to offer. That
does not in any way give me the right, or indeed make it essential for survival, that I force my child to do the same - absolutely f***ing regardless to how much I love, cherish and worship my beer. Given that a mass % of the English population love to drink, does that mean I am ensuring my daughter has no friends, cannot find her place in the world or not survive? Absolutely not. Only a raving, halfwitted idiot would claim otherwise. To mimic you for the sake of it; "forget whether beer is healthy or not". Why, I could say that all day long - but what of my childs rights?
You see, the flaw in your reasoning here is very simple: You assign no intrinsic value to religious belief of any kind, and consider them simply flights of fanciful imagination (or so it seems).
Hey pal, you were the one telling me to not really care whether it's true or not, and I can see just what you mean given my above analogy. Fuck 'em, right? Who cares as long as you force it upon your child, because without it they wont survive, wont have friends, will feel alienated and end up committing suicide. Why is it that no matter how hard I try you will not justify the only thing I am asking justification for in this thread?
Now, let's be frank.. I might not, indeed I don't, find flaws in mass alcohol consumption - indeed, being English, I consider it of utmost importance to everyone English - it is our culture, our way of life. Now kindly point out the flaw in my reasoning that my personal beliefs of alcohol consumption
must be
forced upon my daughter for her to be able to survive or have friends. You are right, I do not assign religious belief the same value that I assign lager. Now tell me what that has to do with the price of a bag of chips.
Most people do not feel as you do, and so they do not consider the instilling of (to you) valueless beliefs as immoral in the slightest.
Paedophiles don't feel as I do. Now justify the
forcing of a specific belief onto a child and how not doing that will mean they have no friends and will not survive. Please, I've only asked 1000 times.
On the contrary, they consider it their moral imperative to teach their children about their God/gods
Although I'm clearly going to have to resort to drawing pictures, let it be said for the last time that I do not have an issue with "teaching".
Historical perspective is absolutely essential in understanding why people do things. You are making a moral judgment of an activity that is rooted in the very seat of humanity's existence. You are looking at something which has been instilled in every culture around the world for thousands of generations and saying that it is "wrong"
An interesting concept.. "It's old, so you can't say it's wrong". What can I say, slavery is rooted in the very seat of humanity's existence - clearly that ain't wrong either. Who the fuck am I to question something when it has been done for millennia? The very fact that it has been done for millennia makes it ok, means it's perfectly peachy. Forget progression, it's for tossers who don't appreciate history.
The adage: "If it aint broke don't fix it" would be good here, but you'd undoubtedly shorten it to "don't fix it".
"They did it 1000 years ago! We have to continue or we'll never survive or have friends!"
For generations upon generations the world was flat. Some prick came along and challenged it. Fuck him too. Bastard.
Not once did I ever say that here and now it is right for people to do this. I have maintained that assigning a moral judgment to this activity is that which is false, and you continue to act as if I have said that it is right.
Actually no. I continue to ask you and Baum to justify the statement that it is "essential to survival" and lack of doing so means you "have no friends". Your seemingly only attempted justification right now is that they did it 1000 years ago. I would laugh at that but I'm far too busy getting my daughter and I drunk.
Well, then you're talking about a much more narrow subject then either of us.
Narrow, wide, long, short, fat, thin, cute or ugly is of no relevance. You seem insistant that man dare not ever challenge something that has been around for thousands of years, while excusing every paedophile in the world for brain fucking their children to be paedohpiles just because they feel like it - all the while completely ignoring the questions I have asked. Don't worry though, I will let you live..Wait, murder has been an intrinsic part of humanity going back to the dawn of humanity, (and indeed from a religious perspective was one of the first things to occur). Wait, let me get my daughter.. I've got something to force feed her.
What we are saying is that it is hardwired into people's behavior to indoctrinate their children into religious belief, and that your characterization of it as morally wrong is silly at best.
That's fine, now you just need to justify how it is "silly at best". Kindly do not give me the "they did it 1000 years ago" crap.
And my statement, as I for some reason need to keep repeating, is that making moral judgments of a fundamental human activity, one that has always been essential to society's smooth functioning until recently, is a silly path to tread.
How dare you question the world's flatness! I shall see you hang from the gallows for such a crime.
I would say "needless to say", but clearly I do need to say it, but there are many social species on the planet. Not one of them, other than humans, feels the need to force feed religious belief to their young. They will teach - most certainly.
Now, kindly justify the "essential" need to
force belief in a specific religion/deity on your child.
(say in a spasticated voice): "But.. but.. they did it 1000 years ago".
Ancient history is the reason why people do this.
Yee fucking haw. Ancient people also used to piss on the floor. Must we really continue the trend just because they did? Ancient people also used to shove christians into pits with lions. Which one of you wants to go first?
It's been so much a part of culture for so many thousands and thousands of years that there is no other way that people know
I disagree. The 33%- 11% religiosity in most of Europe points towards the opposite. Unlike you, not everyone is stuck in the deepest, darkest parts of history. No sir, we have progressed - we continue to progress. To quote the papers:
"Organized religion is in near-terminal decline in Britain..." Matt Barnwell & Amy Iggulden, of the News.Telegraph
Oh could you imagine it? Could you, so stuck in the past, imagine a world where religion was in terminal decline? Where people did not force their children to believe what they believed? All the "it can't happen, people did it thousands of years ago!" will not help or save your arguments. You are a relic, a dinosaur. All the protests that it's essential and needed to have friends crumble into nothingness. Please, I beg and urge you - justify the statements. Show me clearly why, (without worrying about what they did before the invention of wheels), force feeding religious belief here and now leads to having no friends and is essential to survival. Man have I got a hard on for the answer. Please, I implore you.
I would even contend that it's still essential
You would heh? Ok here is your big chance... Justify that statement. $50 says you don't.
Imagine if there were no sense of patriotism within your nation. Where does that sense come from? Does it come naturally? No. It comes because parents, and public schooling, and the community at large has taught everyone to think like that. It's a part of the citizen's identity. It's who they are, for heaven's sake.
33% implies it
isn't who they are - heavens sake, bananas sake or anything else sake aside. For thousands of years mankind has forced fed belief to their young - and through all of that only a third of the English have listened. But no, sayeth you.. it is "Essential", it is what we've always done, it is the only thing we know. I promise you dear sir, force feed or have no friends. The choice is yours. I would say you're talking out of your rectum if I didn't know that bums cant talk.
It's a part of cultural identity. If you remove it, without replacing it with something else, you remove a large part of what makes a person a part of the community that they came from.
11% in France. A large part? I disagree. I've met people that (have friends) and get along just peachy without forced belief. Ok, they're not religious - and nor are they like that guy that lived back in the stone age - but they are part of their community, perhaps because there is always something else - be it fishing, drug pushing or football. And while the teaching is fine, not one of them needed to be forced into any specific belief. For the absolute last time: Justify how it is "essential to survival" and is the only way to have friends.
That's what we were arguing. We weren't talking about the U.K. in 2006, we were talking about communities in general, throughout all of history.
No, we weren't. You seem to be the only person that doesn't understand that.
Religion is and always has been a fact of life.
And that, undoubtedly, makes it fine to force upon your children.
You know, rape is and always has been a fact of life. I'm sorry, what was your point?
which human beings need so desperately to survive
You keep saying that and I keep calling you on it. Why can you not justify the statement other than to say they did it a millennia ago?
in which you think you're right and everyone else is wrong because you've indoctrinated yourself into secular, modernist thinking.
Don't get smarmy with me boy, I have been decent enough to ask more questions than make plain statements. Unfortunately neither of you have had the common decency to answer those questions. All it takes is you. Although I said I wouldn't, need I ask those questions one more time?
Neither Baumgarten nor myself was making a moral judgment of religious indoctrination. We were both saying that it was necessary in most societies throughout history (history, as in all time periods and places, thank you)
That's absolutely peachy. Let's end with a couple more questions, (that will undoubtedly never be answered)
A) Because something could perhaps possibly be considered "necessary" in "most societies in history", does that mean it is necessary right here and now in societies that are vastly multicultural?"
B) Is my alcoholism "essential" to the survival of my daughter, and if I do not force it upon her will she end up with no friends? If not, kindly justify the difference between my alcoholism and belief in a specific floaty space being.
C) Just for the sake of it: Would you consider it 'wrong' if your children were
forced into believing scientology was the "truth" (tm), by your local schooling establishment or perhaps by me, or someone else?
D) Any chance you could answer my question and justify the statements that you have made?
Good day.
Don't forget your pedophile preasts either!