6
   

FREEDOM OF RELIGION FOR ALL AMERICANS

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:40 pm
@edgarblythe,
re finn:

I altered my view further down, oh wise one:
"I am guessing, after further thought, that prior to the divorce, the husband had been content to allow the child to live by the mother's faith. The court may have decided not to disrupt and confuse the child by allowing the father to switch now that the parents are not together."

I have been arguing for parity between parents and their teaching or not of religion, while you read your own predjudices into what I say. I have not injected my personal belief re religion into the thread in any way, because it is not supposed to be about me. But you prefer to zing a person instead of using that vaunted logic you extoll.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Can you show me where ?
Quote:
The repetitive flaw in Liberal thinking involves the notion that the minority should always drive our actions.
It is not clear who are the minority nor what action they are driving. So I put it down to being a pet theory of yours that you dragged out of the cupboard. I would be interested in specifics...
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 10:47 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

re finn:

I altered my view further down, oh wise one:
"I am guessing, after further thought, that prior to the divorce, the husband had been content to allow the child to live by the mother's faith. The court may have decided not to disrupt and confuse the child by allowing the father to switch now that the parents are not together."

I have been arguing for parity between parents and their teaching or not of religion, while you read your own predjudices into what I say. I have not injected my personal belief re religion into the thread in any way, because it is not supposed to be about me. But you prefer to zing a person instead of using that vaunted logic you extoll.


Your posts speak for themselves.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 11:31 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Can you show me where ?


Ionus wrote:
What about knowledge of non-religion, or evolutionary science ? Why do parents have the right to brainwash their children with one religion or another whilst other parents brainwash their children with science ?


Ionus wrote:
If it is about the rights of the child, then what about the example of Evolution versus Creation ? What are the rights of the child to be raised free of prejudice, the better to enable fulfillment of its rights ?


Seem to be contradicted by:

Ionus wrote:
You know the child's rights are at the mercy of the parents. There is no freedom of religion for a child.


Ionus wrote:
Children are not exposed to the world, nor do they want to or should be exposed to the world. They want to learn what is right from their parents. Conflict between parents as to what is right, is harmful.


On the one hand you seem to be arguing for a child's right to freedome of thought and on the other you seem to be arguing that the parent's control of that thought is appropriate.

Perhaps you can explain the seeming contradiction.

Ionus wrote:
Quote:
The repetitive flaw in Liberal thinking involves the notion that the minority should always drive our actions.
It is not clear who are the minority nor what action they are driving. So I put it down to being a pet theory of yours that you dragged out of the cupboard. I would be interested in specifics...


And that's an advertisement?

Still don't get it.

It is a Liberal conceit that the State can take better care than parents of the education of children. Typically they will argue that what amounts to a minority of verified abuses justifies their argument.

Yes there are a few and sad number of children who are taught incredible nonsense by their parents, but this, by no means, is evidence that children must be protected by the State from the presumed "brain-washing" of their parents. Interestingly enough Liberals tend to define "brain-washing" in terms of teaching children lines of thought with which they disagree, and so a home schooling mother who teaches her child, among other things, that the Bible in the literal word of God is guilty of brain-washing, while a mother who teaches her child that violence is never justified, is a wise woman.

It is the same with virtually every Liberal social program.

On the way home this evening I was listening to NPR and they ran a story about a woman who after 25 years at a job has been laid off and will soon be without health insurance. The implication was clear - this is why we need, at least, health reform and should seriously consider a single payer system.

First of all, there are already laws on the books that require employers to offer terminated employees continued health care benefits in accordance with the plan they had. It is referred to as COBRA and it is not indefinate but it is designed to continue health insurance for terminate employees until they can find new employment. Not sure how long it must be offered , but I'm pretty sure that it is at least 12 months.

It is not subsidized of course, but if the concern is availability of health insurance the concern is answered.

Secondly, this woman represents a minority of the people who can be said to not have health insurance and yet Liberals would have us turn the existing system upside down to accomodate this minority.

This pattern of making sweeping and far reaching changes to "protect" or "serve" a "minority" can be seen in many Liberal arguments.

Perhaps it is overly harsh to suggest the pattern represents a "flaw" in their thinking but it is an indulgence we cannot afford, not because we cannot afford to protect and serve those who truly fall into the minority of citizens who need our help, but because the manner in which Liberals what to do so always expands the group who need our help with people who can find a way to obtain our help.

The thought seems to be that it is worth paying for ten welfare freeloaders if we take care of one young mother who really deserves our help. It is worth freeing ten violent criminals if we prevent one innocent man from being incarcerated. It is worth depriving 10 families of the right to home-school if it prevents one child from being filled with apocolyptic nonsence and general ignorance.



JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 11:52 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
It is a Liberal conceit that the State can take better care than parents of the education of children.


Liberals don't necessarily believe that, Finn d' go to ridiculous extremes. The rest is pretty much garbage too. Your posts certainly do speak for themselves.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 02:35 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
On the one hand you seem to be arguing for a child's right to freedom of thought and on the other you seem to be arguing that the parent's control of that thought is appropriate. Perhaps you can explain the seeming contradiction.
Certainly. Whilst it might be nice in theory for a child to have rights of freedom of religion, in practice there is no such thing and this should be acknowledged. Whether or not parental control is appropriate in these matters I have not commented on, I have simply pointed out that it starts off as total.
Quote:
And that's an advertisement? Still don't get it.
It is the promotion of your political stance in general terms without being specific to the problem at hand.
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 02:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It seems to me, that every American shoud choose his OWN
religion and can only be INVITED not coerced nor extorted by anyone,
including any parent, to join a designated religion.

Has the child said s/he prefers to go to temple instead of church? Is that why the judge made this decision?

If not- if the child didn't express a preference for the Jewish faith and an aversion to the Catholic faith - I don't understand this judgment.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 05:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Oddly, so do yours.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 08:56 am
Quote:
In a divorce case wherein the father of a child is a Catholic
and the mother is a Jew, the court enjoined the father
from taking child to a Catholic Church.


I think that the parent with primary guardianship should be the one to decide how the child should be brought up, whether it be religion, discipline, etc. Often, divorced parents use the kids to fight the battles that really are between the two of them, and that puts the children in a terrible conflict.

I think that the court was very wise. No matter what religion a child is taught, ultimately, at adulthood, he can choose to believe what he wants. In the meantime, this kid does not have to be torn in half by squabbling parents.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 09:27 am
@Phoenix32890,
Quote:
this kid does not have to be torn in half by squabbling parents.


Not torn, of course, but neatly cleaved.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 04:31 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
In a divorce case wherein the father of a child is a Catholic
and the mother is a Jew, the court enjoined the father
from taking child to a Catholic Church.


I think that the parent with primary guardianship should be the one to decide how the child should be brought up, whether it be religion, discipline, etc. Often, divorced parents use the kids to fight the battles that really are between the two of them, and that puts the children in a terrible conflict.

I think that the court was very wise. No matter what religion a child is taught, ultimately, at adulthood, he can choose to believe what he wants. In the meantime, this kid does not have to be torn in half by squabbling parents.

He has to wait until adulthood to choose a religion ??

I don 't c Y.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2009 04:44 pm
@aidan,
David wrote:
It seems to me, that every American shoud choose his OWN
religion and can only be INVITED not coerced nor extorted by anyone,
including any parent, to join a designated religion.

aidan wrote:
Has the child said s/he prefers to go to temple instead of church?
Is that why the judge made this decision?

If not- if the child didn't express a preference for the Jewish faith
and an aversion to the Catholic faith - I don't understand this judgment.
I am not aware of the child having said anything.
I saw a picture of the mom holding a very small child; I dunno if its current.


When I was 5 or 6, my mother told me of a conversation
8 years before, wherein my father said that if she wanted to marry him,
he wanted it to be Catholic. She agreed. She mentioned to me
the possibility of my adopting a different religion. Upon consideration
of her arguments, I found them persuasive and I adopted them.

Regardless of age, I was and remain the only arbiter of what I believe.
That is true of every American.




David
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 02:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I am not aware of the child having said anything.
I saw a picture of the mom holding a very small child; I dunno if its current.

Then I just don't get it-the judgment I mean. What's your take on it?

Quote:
When I was 5 or 6, my mother told me of a conversation
8 years before, wherein my father said that if she wanted to marry him,
he wanted it to be Catholic. She agreed. She mentioned to me
the possibility of my adopting a different religion. Upon consideration
of her arguments, I found them persuasive and I adopted them.

I went to a Catholic church once or twice with a friend of mine in Maine- St. Agnes'. I was an adult and it was really the first time I'd ever sat through a Catholic service or mass- I think I went one year with her on Easter and at Christmas, and I loved it. The music, the windows, the whole vibe- it was great. It spoke to me, but I had to admit I'd never make a good Catholic because I wouldn't be able to defer to any other human as being more knowledgeable or closer to what I call god than I myself am.

Quote:
Regardless of age, I was and remain the only arbiter of what I believe.
That is true of every American.

Yeah, and what this judge is doing is making it impossible for this kid to make his own fully informed decision about this. He's in effect steering him in one direction as fully as he's steering him away from another.
That seems wrong and an infringement on this child's freedom of expression of belief, or even the opportunity to learn what he might believe.

Is that how you see it?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2009 07:10 am
@aidan,

Quote:
I am not aware of the child having said anything.
I saw a picture of the mom holding a very small child; I dunno if its current.

Quote:
Then I just don't get it-the judgment I mean.
What's your take on it?
All I heard is that the ct. enjoined her dad from taking her to a Catholic Church.
We can only speculate qua judicial motivation.

Quote:
When I was 5 or 6, my mother told me of a conversation
8 years before, wherein my father said that if she wanted to marry him,
he wanted it to be Catholic. She agreed. She mentioned to me
the possibility of my adopting a different religion. Upon consideration
of her arguments, I found them persuasive and I adopted them.

Quote:
I went to a Catholic church once or twice with a friend of mine in Maine- St. Agnes'. I was an adult and it was really the first time I'd ever sat through a Catholic service or mass- I think I went one year with her on Easter and at Christmas, and I loved it. The music, the windows, the whole vibe- it was great. It spoke to me, but I had to admit I'd never make a good Catholic because I wouldn't be able to defer to any other human as being more knowledgeable or closer to what I call god than I myself am.


Quote:
Regardless of age, I was and remain the only arbiter of what I believe.
That is true of every American.

Quote:
Yeah, and what this judge is doing is making it impossible for this kid to make his own fully informed decision about this. He's in effect steering him in one direction as fully as he's steering him away from another.
That seems wrong and an infringement on this child's freedom of expression of belief, or even the opportunity to learn what he might believe.

Is that how you see it?
Well, in fairness to the ct, it only ordered her FATHER not to take her into a Catholic Church.
It did not order the CHILD to do anything. She remains free.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 12:05:50