Jesus Camp

[gnam]

My concern here has been to question the legitimacy of citing religious beliefs, beliefs apparently (according to some of the other posters) chosen according to taste, as reason(s) for others to accept moral conclusions.

In other words I am interested in compelling arguments and reasoning, not people's religious taste.

Religion is not a matter of taste for me...or for others like me.

Although for some it is....who want to pick and choose what morality should be in it...or what morality should be changed...or excluded.

Some go to the extent of challenging the church and its belief. Some end up creating their own religion...creating their own version of what they think it ought to be!

You wanted solid reason gleaned from compelling arguments. And I tell you, faith and reason do not go together!

I think you should re-read the exchanges...

Betsy,

I've read them. I have a number of religious friends of varying denominations who would take issue with your (seemingly categorical) claim that faith and reason do not go together. For my part, I recognize that for anyone alive, a certain number of beliefs must be taken as a matter of faith (in the loosest sense of the word). The point is, Betsy, that most people have faith in those things for which they find they have good reasons.

For example, I don't know beyond all possible doubts that the sun will rise tomorrow. Any number of extraordinary situations might attain by which the sun may not shine on my part of the world. I, therefore, have no conclusive proof (recall here that you said that "faith is believing in something that has no proof") that the sun will rise tomorrow. I only have reasons (good reasosns at that) that convince me that my faith is well placed in the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. So in this case, my faith is based in reason(s): ie. the sun has always risen in the past (experience or empirical/inductive reason), astrophysics (rational theory), etc.

Likewise, it seems, that anyone who thinks that biblical teachings are true/good must do so based on reasons by which they are convinced. Presumably people don't simply stumble upon christian faith. The christian apostles claim that the nazarene was the son of god because he performed miracles and because the nazarene told them so, not because they spontaneously/randomly decided to believe such a bunch of drivel all on their own. I could go on here but I suspect you get the point: your earlier statement that faith is the belief in something that has no [conclusive] proof is true. That is, it is a true definition of the concept of faith. However, your claim that faith and reason do not go together is hogwash and basically constitutes a dishonest attempt to shield your religion and 'faith'-based beliefs from critique. Anyone short of solipsists and vegetables must have faith, in some measure, in order to go about their daily lives. But people place their faith in things for which there are reasons. What's more, faith and reason do go hand in hand and must go together since reason is basically a category in which evidence is contained.

Any evidence you give to one particular conclusion/belief is a reason to accept that conclusion/belief, or not. Therefore, when you say that you believe in Christ because doing so has worked for you, you are giving personal testimony as to the effectiveness of sharing in the tenets of your faith, in other words you are giving reasons. The bible itself is one piece of evidential reason for believing that the world is a certain way.

When you say that religion is no mere matter of taste for you or others like you, one is left to infer from your lack of commentary on what religion is about, that religion is a matter of some other compulsion... like faith/belief brought about through reason. However, if your faith is something based on a mere decision to believe the truth of christianity independantly of all reasons then it must be something to do with taste. If that is so, then it might also be said that whether or not we should practice charity is not an ethical concern, but instead a matter of our inclinations as far as christianity is concerned. One possible result of this (grounding religious belief in inclination) might also be that Christianity could have nothing legitimate to say about homosexuality insofar as the homosexuals in question are not christians. Furthermore, christians would be justified in advertising their religion but could make no claim to a right to have their beliefs publicly acknowledged (ie. taught in schools) since we similarly don't believe that corporate donors should be allowed to advertise in classrooms.

At any rate, this is only a small matter. But it seems to me that there are significant consequences both for bringing reason into the religious arena as well as excluding it. What's important is that it can't be both ways and that you have been a bit slippery in your commitment to one position or the other. Either you think that religion is a matter of inclination (faith according to appeal or taste) that all are free to buy into or not... or you think that religion has something significant and compelling to say about social ethical standards, thus we all have 'reasons' (reason, in this case, as a common language by which to uncover ethical truths) to pay attention when christians start talking about those standards with reference to their religion. In the first case, people have a right to tell christians to keep their faith to themselves; and on the other, if the reasoning is good, people should be willing to hear what is said by christians.

[kimmy]

Kimmi, it sounds like your dad taught you to how to treat those religious enough to talk about their faith.

I think there's something of a difference between being "religious enough to talk about their faith" and being intrusive enough to attempt to interfere with other peoples' children.

Pounding on the door and shoving your finger in their face as you utter threats.

I don't know that dad uttered any threats, although it's quite possible that being confronted by someone as physically imposing as dad is, in itself, threatening.

It was wrong of this couple to entice kids into their back yard without parents permission, but freaking out at them is over the top.

I really don't agree. I think dad was right to tell them to stop what they were doing.

If it were your kids, and if instead of Christians, it were (say) Muslims or Scientologists luring them to their back yard to teach your kids about their faith, I doubt you'd be as forgiving.

-k

{do you have a moment to speak of enlightenment? here, have a flower. }

[jefferiah]

You do have a right, Gnam, to ask people not to preach to you. Most people are not big fans of it. But at the same time I think Betsy is defending Christians in general against an exaggerated claim that they are forcing their religious beliefs on people when the proselytize. And she is pointing out that if a young girl approaches someone to promote what she believes she is not forcing anything on anyone. If people don't like what she says they will survive. Idealogies don't have to be religious. There are political idealogies. Lets say I happen to agree with one political idealogy while I find another distasteful. But there is a man on television who argues in favour of this other idealogy. He is not forcing his beliefs on anyone. He is promoting them.

I used to think the same thing of Christians. When I was younger I felt all Christians were judgemental, bigoted meanies. But I came to realize that most of this was just something that I picked up from other teens, rather than based on actual experience with Christians. Looking back I cant remember experiencing any attacks from Christians. And most of my friends who would say things about Christians and church-goer people---well, it just seemed to be a popular thing for them to say almost, without any reason. None of them had experienced any interference from the Church in their lives. Honestly Gnam. How often do Christians come in direct contact with you and literally force you to do things? Not promote their beliefs? But force you to recant heresies, and to swear allegiance to the Church. How often do you have to deal with religious people busting your door down and taking your family to be burned at the stake? How much difficulty are you really dealing with when it comes to the church?

[kimmy]

You're comparing internet trash-talk to spousal battery? Get real, Betsy.

If you don't understand that there's a big difference between what people feel free to say on an internet message board compared to what they'd do in a real life situation, then I'm not sure you're qualified to be on the internet.

How many high school killers had been on the web bragging about their intent? Harris from Columbine was said to have bragged to want to "rip the arms off racists...etc..,"

I haven't read the web-postings of people like Kimveer Gill or Harris and Kliebold, so I can't really comment on them first-hand. However, I have heard that they contained graphic, detailed fantasies about violence against targets that they knew in real life.

I don't think a few off-color comments about slapping a stranger, or choking her with her evangelical tracts is remotely similar.

Anyway, I'm just perplexed why you're trying to down-play those comments, Kimmy. Like they're just normal comments to say about a girl...whose only "crime" was to give that 30-second spiel.

I'm downplaying the comments because I strongly doubt they're anything more than idle chit-chat. I doubt that the guy who is praying for god to help her trip and smack her face on a rock actually has much pull with god at all. Do you really think he's praying for her to trip and smack her face on a rock? Do you really think god will listen to his prayer? I don't think he's serious. I don't think the guy who says he would shove the pamphlets down her throat is serious either. I think it's a figure of speech.

I was responding to your comment:

"Good grief. I don't think a few comments about slapping her qualify as "vicious savagery."

And yes, compared to spousal abuse....a few comments about slapping a woman would get the rabid response of the feminists, and those who purport to abhor violence against women! Comments like those wouldn't be acceptable to them! They'd swoop down like locusts condemning those commentators!

Wait, little Rachel is female, isn't she? Why haven't those angry feminists already swooped down??

Tell you what, betsy, if you're really convinced that the people who wrote those things on that message board really mean harm to little Rachel, or if you think that they're actually another Dylan Kliebold or Kimveer Gill just waiting to explode, maybe you should notify the authorities.

How is this any different? Because Rachel happens to be a Christian?

No, because I don't think the authors are serious. I think they intended to express annoyance and contempt, not a sincere threat of physical violence.

"I let a guy demonstrate a vacuum cleaner for me, since having done that way back....I know he was a newbie trying to get his experience and bearing on how to get his foot in the door. My mistake.

His supervisor entered the picture...and tried to "close the sale."

When I wouldn't buy...the supervisor became insulting..and indicated I must love living like a slob if after seeing that my carpet has some piles of unseen dirt, I still cannot appreciate the superior performance of his product."

When these ADULT salesmen give their sales pitch in the privacy of your own homes...

Wait a minute... remind me again how these salesmen got into your private residence?

and as I had experienced, this guy even had the audacity to insult me right in my own home....in comparison to what Rachel had done, approaching someone in a public place, and giving her 30-second sales pitch along with a brochure....I think things are little bit out of whack here when this little girl is getting all these vicous comment!

Because people find proselytes annoying, and because the video was of a proselyte, not a vacuum-cleaner salesman.

If you can't see the comparison between the two....well I'm surely at a loss!

Like I said, you are surrounded by people and propagandas trying to tell you how to live...everyday of your waking life! A little annoyance from someone like Rachel is no big deal to normal people!

Both might be annoying, but one wants to tell you how to clean your carpet, and one wants to tell you how to live your life. Nobody is going to tell you that you'll go to hell if your carpet isn't clean. But evangelical fuckheads have told me that I'm going to hell if I don't listen to their advice on how to save my soul. I find it profoundly insulting and offensive.

-k

[gnam]

Honestly Gnam. How often do Christians come in direct contact with you and literally force you to do things? Not promote their beliefs? But force you to recant heresies, and to swear allegiance to the Church. How often do you have to deal with religious people busting your door down and taking your family to be burned at the stake? How much difficulty are you really dealing with when it comes to the church?

On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being no difficulty from the church, I would have to say 0 for me personally, exactly the same amount of difficulty that women who have abortions and gay people force christians to deal with. No one forces christians to have abortions or to copulate 'greek-style.' Last time I checked, the gay community and pro-choice groups had yet to undertake to have christians publicly fed to lions. Interestingly, christian groups often try to criminalize women who have abortions and certain gay activities. But that's not really what this is about... at least I don't think so, not directly.

In the end, my concern isn't really about little girls talking to me about jesus, or god, or santa clause, or the easter bunny. In a certain sense their naive innocence is cute. What's not cute, what's a little scary, is that we are watching the process by which the fascist pedagogical 'get'em while they're young' theory is being put to work. Of course this is nothing new in christian countries (or for that matter in ideologically totalitarian ones) throughout history (france, germany, england, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc) and that little girl might turn out just fine. But it is a little frightening when we don't catch this girl asking why the sky is blue, why god lets bad things happen to good people, or how santa really knows if children are really bad or good.

At any rate, what I've been arguing with Betsy is that ethics are a public concern and, as such, require a public language by which to discuss them. If the language of christianity is, as betsy seems to imply, merely a matter of personal taste, then there is nothing really public or compelling in christianity that deserves to be part of public discourse. In other words, christian arguments can safely, and reasonably be ignored by non-christians if those arguments have nothing to do with reason, as betsy suggests. If, on the other hand, reason (to date the only discursive language to attempt at universality) is employed by christians, muslims, hindu's etc, then there is a basis on which these groups can talk to one another about morality, ethics, justice, etc

The question, then, is about whether christians should simply be ignored when they try to tell us why Abortion is wrong, the way I ignore TV commercials and go to the fridge for another beer when they tell me that macdonald's sells wonderful healthy food; or, whether we should take them seriously as members of society who want more than simply to tell us what their religion says, but to tell us the "truth" contained within their religion. To do so would require christians to stop talking about their 'unreasoned faith', and start talking reasons with the rest of us who don't buy their religious beliefs.

There are at least two ways to do this: 1. reason with us about why we should become christians. 2. reason with us about how christian teachings are not incompatible with a broader cross-section of belief systems that make up a society. In both cases they should expect to have their belief systems questioned, cross-examined, and possibly rejected... with reasons. This, i think, is at least part of what it means to be a christian in a democracy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Every human being is entitled to an opinion. That is a personal right. Special interest groups are a horse of a different colour, and deserve no rights. Lobby groups are the bane of modern political existence and need to be considered carefully and yet rejected without proof of representation.

Religion and morals are black and white issues to most people whereas politics is the art of colouring issues in shades of grey. They are like oil and water, they just don't mix.

[betsy]

If you can't see the comparison between the two....well I'm surely at a loss!

Like I said, you are surrounded by people and propagandas trying to tell you how to live...everyday of your waking life! A little annoyance from someone like Rachel is no big deal to normal people!

Both might be annoying, but one wants to tell you how to clean your carpet, and one wants to tell you how to live your life. Nobody is going to tell you that you'll go to hell if your carpet isn't clean. But evangelical fuckheads have told me that I'm going to hell if I don't listen to their advice on how to save my soul. I find it profoundly insulting and offensive.

-k

Yeah the salesman tells me how to clean my carpet...same as a preacher tells me how to clean my soul!

The salesman tells me I live in filth, and must love being in it because I didn't want to buy what he's selling....same as the preacher tells me I live in sin because I didn't want to buy what he's selling.

The salesman used the scary tactics with my health...and the preacher used the scary tactics of hell!

So there's no difference there! Bottom line: they're both telling you how to live!

[BubberMiley]

So there's no difference there! Bottom line: they're both telling you how to live!

Well, there is a difference. One deals with something tangible and real, like a carpet. The other deals with superstition and misrepresentation of life. At least the carpet cleaner was being honest when he said you're living like a pig.

[betsy]

I haven't read the web-postings of people like Kimveer Gill or Harris and Kliebold, so I can't really comment on them first-hand. However, I have heard that they contained graphic, detailed fantasies about violence against targets that they knew in real life.

I don't think a few off-color comments about slapping a stranger, or choking her with her evangelical tracts is remotely similar.

-k

That's what some of their acquaintances said of the killers, and they had also dismissed their braggings...they didn't think much of it.

But then, the comments about Rachel were extreme in nature. As I've said, we get annoyed by hockey juniors knocking on our doors...but I don't think any of us here joke about hurting them!

Yes, the comments made about rachel were more likely harmless prattle...but it is your reaction that I find disturbing, to be quite honest.

When I've expressed my outrage over those comments, why do you seek to downplay and dismiss the whole thing as being hyper-sensitive on my part? Do you really know those people personally that you can confidently vouch that none of them is a Harris or a Kiebold?

I guess holding up the mirror shows such a stark reflection: you've got the same extremists and looney nuts in your midst.

[betsy]

So there's no difference there! Bottom line: they're both telling you how to live!

Well, there is a difference. One deals with something tangible and real, like a carpet. The other deals with superstition and misrepresentation of life. At least the carpet cleaner was being honest when he said you're living like a pig.

Oh Bubber, you of all people should be the first one to understand what I am saying, after all you've been whining about people telling you drugs is bad for you!

Anyway, Tangible or not. Honest or not. Pressure tactics or not.

Still the same bottom line: they're both telling you how to live!

[betsy]

It was wrong of this couple to entice kids into their back yard without parents permission, but freaking out at them is over the top.

I really don't agree. I think dad was right to tell them to stop what they were doing.

If it were your kids, and if instead of Christians, it were (say) Muslims or Scientologists luring them to their back yard to teach your kids about their faith, I doubt you'd be as forgiving.

-k

{do you have a moment to speak of enlightenment? here, have a flower. }

If I remember your story right...it was your friend who invited you and took you there, right?

Did your dad even talk to your friend at all?

If it was my kid...I'd just tell my kid not to go there again. And explain why!

And I'd call her friend's parents...just in case they have no idea what's going on. And just so they know where I stand on the issue. Diplomatic talk.

I might talk to the preacher couple too, but in a diplomatic way. I mean, even if they're Muslims or Scientologists....there's really no harm done, except wasting my daughter's time, right?

Then I'd talk to her friend...and depending on what I think of her, I might either tell my kid not to hang around with her anymore (that's it! kaput the friendship!)....or not to go anywhere with her without my permission. And I'll warn my daughter, if I learned she went to a stranger's house behind my back...she'll get a spanking!

It's just not the thing that my daughter is getting doctrinized...it's just the thought of my daughter going into strangers' houses that's enough to make my blood pressure go up!

[BubberMiley]

Oh Bubber, you of all people should be the first one to understand what I am saying, after all you've been whining about people telling you drugs is bad for you!

I've never whined about that. I appreciate their concern for my health. I just resent them sending the law after me.

[betsy]

I was responding to your comment:

"Good grief. I don't think a few comments about slapping her qualify as "vicious savagery."

And yes, compared to spousal abuse....a few comments about slapping a woman would get the rabid response of the feminists, and those who purport to abhor violence against women! Comments like those wouldn't be acceptable to them! They'd swoop down like locusts condemning those commentators!

Wait, little Rachel is female, isn't she? Why haven't those angry feminists already swooped down??

I'm wondering too! And Rachel isn't only female...she's a child to boot!

Maybe they can't decide what to do. After all...they're mostly anti-religion too!

[jefferiah]

Still I have never had an experience of someone coming to my door telling me I am going to hell. Have you really had this happen that often? But even so, if you think what they are saying is malarky well then you can just dismiss them. If they believe you are going to hell if you don't follow a certain religion that is their right. If you dont believe them, then dont believe them. They are not trying to offend you. You dont have to be so sensitive, Kimmy and Gnam. I have had lots of people put down things I like and believe in.

[jefferiah]

Someone on this thread said that they dont see homosexual groups interfering with what Christians believe. But this is not true, and in the future given the trends of thought in society I don't think it is paranoid to suggest there is a stronger possibility of Christianity being threatened by movements in opposition to it, than vice versa. For instance I believe it was a court in Saskatchewan that decided that statements in the bible referring to homosexuality as a sin are "hate literature". Society has become increasingly secularized. We have more people nowadays putting conservative religious values then ever before. Being a Christian is almost a black mark on people in many circles. Whether you agree with something like same sex marriage or not, you cannot deny that views have changed greatly since 1950. If you look at society in the 1950s and then the 1960s and then the 1990s...and so on until now. You will see a more secular attitude in each age. At one time being opposed ot gay marriage would not have been right wing or extreme at all. One would not even have had to have been religious because at that time religious values were still supported by the mainstream even though people were not always church-goers. So you have to agree that society has changed constantly since the founding of Canada and America. Things that were moderate in 1950 are now very right. What is funny is that no matter how left the right has become the left is never satisfied? Even though you may not intend it, I dont think you realize the leftism of some of your counterparts that you support. I fear a society where the right to believe something is a sin, the right to criticize someone of another race over an important issue...all these things that have a slight possibility of being offensive could end up being banned. It is not unrealistic if you read some of the ridiculous cases that are out there, where people are fully supporting the ridiculous claims.

To give a non-religious example....You may have read about Oprah Winfrey's complaint against a store in Paris for being racist because they turned her away at the door. Sounds bad right. But what happened was Oprah went to the store after hours. There was a sign on the door stating the hours, and it had been closed for 15 minutes I believe. But Oprah saw lights on inside the store and people inside. The employees were having a meeting. The doors were locked. It was private. Oprah banged on the window to get into the store, but a guard came and told her a private meeting is going on, the store is closed, could you please come back tomorrow. But Oprah announced to the world that they turned away because she was black. And if Britney Spears had been there they would not have turned her away. How does Oprah know this? She does not know any of the workers inside there, but she can easily accuse them of racism. Which is a big black mark on someone, whether it is true they are racist or not. And once the accusation is out people think twice about supporting them whether it is true or not. Even though the employees were following normal store rules to not allow people in after hours, the store was forced, by the ridiculous growing public outrage Oprah had initiated against them, to apologize to Oprah for not letting her in after hours, for treating her like everyone else. Apparently if they treated her like everyone else it would be racist.

[bradco]

My problem is giving this sales pitch to children who are at an age where they are very impressionable and will believe anything from an adult figure of authourity (trust me I work with young children, its true). Its my belief we should all have the chance to decide for ourselves, when we are mentally capable of doing so, what religion (or no religion) is right for us. One of the priests flat out says its good to get em while theyre young and impressionable....I have issues with that

Parents are the MAIN adult figures of authority...of course children will learn from them and believe in their parents' belief. It is the parents natural right to pass down their belief and philosophy to their children.

You believe what you believe...and you pass it on to your children. That is a parental responsiblity!

What are you suggesting here? Let our children loose to roam the world to find their own way? It's not even safe to let them go to the mall by themselves!

I hope this does not mean what I suspect it means. Another banning waiting to happen?

Or is this just another "wishing will make it so."

parental responsibility is to teach kids to look both ways before they cross the street etc...it isnt to brain wash them with your own religous beliefs. Parental responsibility is to teach their children to be able to think critically. By indoctrinating their children parents are ignoring their responsiblity. You shouldnt be forcing your children to believe all your own religious beliefs...thats not to say you cant provide them with your belief but dont force it upon them.

[bradco]

Kimmi, it sounds like your dad taught you to how to treat those religious enough to talk about their faith. Pounding on the door and shoving your finger in their face as you utter threats.

It was wrong of this couple to entice kids into their back yard without parents permission, but freaking out at them is over the top.

luring children with candy is wrong for any purpose. You do this today and you would probably end up in court.

[betsy]

parental responsibility is to teach kids to look both ways before they cross the street etc...it isnt to brain wash them with your own religous beliefs. Parental responsibility is to teach their children to be able to think critically. By indoctrinating their children parents are ignoring their responsiblity. You shouldnt be forcing your children to believe all your own religious beliefs...thats not to say you cant provide them with your belief but dont force it upon them.

I'm not going to have my kid experience getting sodomized just to give him a chance to decide whether he likes it or not!

How to cross the street is just a tiny fraction of learning (unless you speak symbolically).

VALUES! Those are the gems of learning we get from our parents! My child will learn the values of this family. And should he wish not to indulge with our values...he can always do so...when he reach adulthood and make a home for himself! And I will always love him!

Sure I will teach him my religion. That's where most of our values are rooted from.

My parents never forced me to believe...they've welcomed my questions.

And in my teen years, they've put up with my rebellion! So of course, I'll be applying the same method to my kid!

That's where children learn: from their parents!

Brainwash or not...I say I am the parent, and nobody's going to tell me how I should raise my kid.

And most parents think this way.

Hence there's only one way for the busy-body crusaders to breach that wall. By force! Getting kids "doctrinized" in the classrooms (or much better yet, getting them while they are really young in daycares)...and through legislations!

So you non-religious folks are no different from us...or from the preacher you quoted about getting children while they're young! The non-religious group and the busy-body crusaders will do the same if they have the chance! And oh, how they'd love to get that chance!

Don't they just love to get their hands on our children. And they're working on it...it won't be long, don't worry...I'm willing to bet.

No lures of candies with this group. No sireeee!

Once they get their toes in the doors of your homes...they're in!

Our only difference is our beliefs....the kinds of values that we want to teach the children!

[DarkAngel_]

parental responsibility is to teach kids to look both ways before they cross the street etc...it isnt to brain wash them with your own religous beliefs. Parental responsibility is to teach their children to be able to think critically. By indoctrinating their children parents are ignoring their responsiblity. You shouldnt be forcing your children to believe all your own religious beliefs...thats not to say you cant provide them with your belief but dont force it upon them.

I'm not going to have my kid experience getting sodomized just to give him a chance to decide whether he likes it or not!

How to cross the street is just a tiny fraction of learning (unless you speak symbolically).

VALUES! Those are the gems of learning we get from our parents! My child will learn the values of this family. And should he wish not to indulge with our values...he can always do so...when he reach adulthood and make a home for himself! And I will always love him!

Sure I will teach him my religion. That's where most of our values are rooted from.

My parents never forced me to believe...they've welcomed my questions.

And in my teen years, they've put up with my rebellion! So of course, I'll be applying the same method to my kid!

That's where children learn: from their parents!

Brainwash or not...I say I am the parent, and nobody's going to tell me how I should raise my kid.

And most parents think this way.

Hence there's only one way for the busy-body crusaders to breach that wall. By force! Getting kids "doctrinized" in the classrooms (or much better yet, getting them while they are really young in daycares)...and through legislations!

So you non-religious folks are no different from us...or from the preacher you quoted about getting children while they're young! The non-religious group and the busy-body crusaders will do the same if they have the chance! And oh, how they'd love to get that chance!

Don't they just love to get their hands on our children. And they're working on it...it won't be long, don't worry...I'm willing to bet.

No lures of candies with this group. No sireeee!

Once they get their toes in the doors of your homes...they're in!

Our only difference is our beliefs....the kinds of values that we want to teach the children!

you are right! guard your kids from new values! the learning of new hope is heresy! we are against your proof it is true, they are the values that pass by the great golden statue! that statue is your morals!

there where proof is to be, none exists, accept this and believe in your faith, but not as to be so stubborn that your kids would not build a new statue and pull yours to the ground! values by faith is values left blinded because of how bright they are, values grow by self, religion is not needed for it but it helps. keep 1 value close, but separate it from faith, faith is personal, have faith and hope in your children’s success, not in your god causing your children’s success, give them maturity, then faith, then teach them 'your' faith, then they can learn of others on their own.

that is how i'd do it, children are gullible, so teach them not to trust too much! teach them to know them selves first! from there the morals are truly built, moral building is not exclusive to religion...

[betsy]

Kimmi, it sounds like your dad taught you to how to treat those religious enough to talk about their faith. Pounding on the door and shoving your finger in their face as you utter threats.

It was wrong of this couple to entice kids into their back yard without parents permission, but freaking out at them is over the top.

luring children with candy is wrong for any purpose. You do this today and you would probably end up in court.

No, I wouldn't say luring children with candies or toys is wrong for any purpose. C'mon, the biggest marketing grab are kids! They bring mom and dad in tow!

Luring them to come to your house though, is dumb. Especially nowadays.

If I were those couple, I would set up a huge tent...with a big sign: FREE CANDIES/TOYS IN EXCHANGE FOR A FEW MINUTES KNOWING JESUS! or, LISTEN TO THE GOSPEL AND GET 3 MARS BARS FREE!

...That way, you're just like any McDonald's or Burger King luring kids with Disney tie-up promo....and getting them into the fastfood lifestyle! That's the way to live, man! Fastfood meals!

Hey, if they can do it, why can't we?

[Black Dog]

Oh Bubber, you of all people should be the first one to understand what I am saying, after all you've been whining about people telling you drugs is bad for you!

Anyway, Tangible or not. Honest or not. Pressure tactics or not.

Still the same bottom line: they're both telling you how to live!

Not sure who brought the vacumn leaner salesman thing into it (this thread is a pain to read: betsy can you try and respond in one post instead of making a new post everytime?) but I'll say this much; they are both annoying in their own way. But what makes religious types worse is the implicit moral judgement. No vacumn cleaner salesman would tell you your dirty carpets make you a bad person, but that's precisely what every yahoo peddling their particular One, True path does just by turning up.

[betsy]

Oh Bubber, you of all people should be the first one to understand what I am saying, after all you've been whining about people telling you drugs is bad for you!

Anyway, Tangible or not. Honest or not. Pressure tactics or not.

Still the same bottom line: they're both telling you how to live!

Not sure who brought the vacumn leaner salesman thing into it (this thread is a pain to read: betsy can you try and respond in one post instead of making a new post everytime?) but I'll say this much; they are both annoying in their own way. But what makes religious types worse is the implicit moral judgement. No vacumn cleaner salesman would tell you your dirty carpets make you a bad person, but that's precisely what every yahoo peddling their particular One, True path does just by turning up.

I'd like to stress the particular statements I was responding to... but I don't know how to make multiple boxes in one post.

But who doesn't make any implicit moral judgement? Religious or non-religious types?

And so what if they make implicit moral judgement...religious and non-religious types? Why would we let it bother us to the point that we lose rationality? Especially when we don't believe what they preach anyway!

Life is full of annoyances and irritants that we'd rather live without...it's just part of life! I'd say learn to deal with it...we don't have to accept them. No one is forcing us to accept them!

We've got the choice!

[kimmy]

If I were those couple, I would set up a huge tent...with a big sign: FREE CANDIES/TOYS IN EXCHANGE FOR A FEW MINUTES KNOWING JESUS! or, LISTEN TO THE GOSPEL AND GET 3 MARS BARS FREE!

...That way, you're just like any McDonald's or Burger King luring kids with Disney tie-up promo....and getting them into the fastfood lifestyle! That's the way to live, man! Fastfood meals!

Yeah the salesman tells me how to clean my carpet...same as a preacher tells me how to clean my soul!

The salesman tells me I live in filth, and must love being in it because I didn't want to buy what he's selling....same as the preacher tells me I live in sin because I didn't want to buy what he's selling.

The salesman used the scary tactics with my health...and the preacher used the scary tactics of hell!

So there's no difference there! Bottom line: they're both telling you how to live!

Well, Betsy, if you really don't see any difference between selling religion and selling vacuum cleaners or happy meals, we really ought to talk about revoking the church's tax-exempt status. Because if there's no difference between religion and vacuum cleaners or happy-meals, then there's no reason why McDonald's and Vacuum Village should pay taxes while the church doesn't.

Anyway, I'm not buying what you're saying. I don't believe a word of it. I've seen you fly off the handle in just about every thread about Muslims and Islam on this board. I've seen your writing enough to know that you'd react a lot differently if your kid came home and told you he bought a Happy Meal than if he came home and told you he was through with Jesus and was turning Muslim.

That's what some of their acquaintances said of the killers, and they had also dismissed their braggings...they didn't think much of it.

Remind me again... did Harris and Kliebold go around Columbine Highschool slapping people, shoving pamphlets in their mouths, and praying for them to fall on their faces?

To be blunt, you're making yourself look foolish by trying to equate the off-color comments about Rachel with the kind of detailed graphic violence that Kimveer Gill or the Columbine killers wrote.

But then, the comments about Rachel were extreme in nature. As I've said, we get annoyed by hockey juniors knocking on our doors...but I don't think any of us here joke about hurting them!

Yes, the comments made about rachel were more likely harmless prattle...but it is your reaction that I find disturbing, to be quite honest.

You're disturbed because I don't think it's anything more than harmless prattle?

When I've expressed my outrage over those comments, why do you seek to downplay and dismiss the whole thing as being hyper-sensitive on my part? Do you really know those people personally that you can confidently vouch that none of them is a Harris or a Kiebold?

People often joke about smacking politicians, lawyers, celebrities, TV commercial pitch-men, and yes, even door-to-door evangelists. It's not "extreme", it's not an impending warning of a hate-fueled massacre in the making... it's just people expressing their annoyance or frustration or disgust.

I've personally written on many occassions that I would punch Jean Chretien right in the testicles. The RCMP never paid a visit to my house or confiscated my computer. The former PM has not, to my knowledge, started wearing a cup to protect his gonads. You know, maybe normal people just don't get all that worked up about chit-chat on message boards as you do.

I guess holding up the mirror shows such a stark reflection: you've got the same extremists and looney nuts in your midst.

Of course. There's loonies and extremists in everybody's midst.

-k

[betsy]

Well, Betsy, if you really don't see any difference between selling religion and selling vacuum cleaners or happy meals, we really ought to talk about revoking the church's tax-exempt status. Because if there's no difference between religion and vacuum cleaners or happy-meals, then there's no reason why McDonald's and Vacuum Village should pay taxes while the church doesn't.

You're speaking with your emotion, and apparently blinded by your prejudice. I don't know what cause such strong reaction from you against the Christians, or maybe other religions...it's hard to believe it could be just that one episode with your dad.

McDonald's and the vacuum Village pay taxes I suppose simply for the reason that they are registered as businesses. They are out to make a profit. Maybe they should apply to become religion...and just rely on DONATIONS for every burger and vacuum cleaner they hand out.

[betsy]

Anyway, I'm not buying what you're saying. I don't believe a word of it. I've seen you fly off the handle in just about every thread about Muslims and Islam on this board. I've seen your writing enough to know that you'd react a lot differently if your kid came home and told you he bought a Happy Meal than if he came home and told you he was through with Jesus and was turning Muslim.

-k

So you judge me by those thread...thus you bestow your own MORAL JUDGEMENT upon me based on those opinion. Which you are twisting out of context.

Now I get the picture!

No wonder you feel that sort of paranoia when you are faced-to-faced with a Muslim woman in traditional garb. Because you, yourself, automatically judge others...therefore you assume they judge you!

You don't know me. I think I would know when my child is just being introduced to Allah or the space aliens hiding in some couple's closet...I think I'll know enough when my child's encounter with a Muslim is quite harmless.

I'll totally flip though if my son comes home wearing a red dress and a long wig, with make-up and all...and tells me the couple even gave him a manicure!

So a Muslim talk to my child about Allah...big deal! It'll be just one of many!

I'm sure my child will be coming home from school with a lot of other information that he'd learned from others that he'd ask me about. Sex, homosexuals, alternative lifestyle, etc..,

If you've got a good relationship with your child...and if you encourage and welcome open communication between him and you...you've got nothing to worry about.

At least they make nice conversations at the dinner table after you've exhausted all the pleasantries of "how's your day." You can correct, edit, revise, critique, etc.., all the information your child brings home to you. That's how they learn!

But I surely don't want my child going into ANY STRANGER'S home....religious or non-religious homes, just because it isn't safe anymore. Who knows if it'll turn out to be the house of a Gacy wannabe.