• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would you force your religion on your kids?

Would you force your religion on your kids?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 21.6%

  • No

    Votes: 23 62.2%

  • no opinion (please specify)

    Votes: 6 16.2%
  • Total voters
    37

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
36,751
Reaction score
38,756
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't have any children but when I do I think I will let them know what I beleive in but also show them other religions and let them make up their own minds what they choose to beleive in. So if you have kids or don't would you force your religion on them?
 
I was brought up briefly as Catholic because my Jewish mother felt my father's beliefs were stronger than her own. At my First Holy Communion, she cried because she realized just how Jewish she was and felt she'd lost her daughter.
While all 4 of us were christened, she did not force any more church going, although I continued to go first to Catholic church and then, as a teenager, to Episcopalian and Lutheran churches, joining their youth groups, etc.
I became a non-believer after marriage, although I was leaning that way for a while.
My own children go to their father's church, which is protestant. They enjoy it, they go on missionary trips with other youth groups in the summer. They know I am a nonbeliever (my daughter calls me a witch-she does so as bragging/joking). Because I agreed to them going with their dad, at first, he insisted they go to Sunday school, etc. By the time they were 12, it was more a request and one they have not always turned down.
It's important for kids to learn that there are all kinds of faith, religious and non-religious. It's important too that they learn charity, humility and the satisfaction of giving. As long as they get that from the church they attend, I have no issue. But the first time I hear them utter a negativity under the guise of religion, they're outta there.
 
I voted yes. Not because I will force them, but through inaction I'd actually be enfluencing them with my beliefs/religion.
We eventually grow up to be our parents - Nature vs Nurture.
 
I voted yes. But I think in time they will make there own choice. I wouldn't hate them for it.
 
It’s not a matter of “force”, but of upbringing. I will raise my children in a christian home, and when they understand scripture and look out into the world and see its truth with their own eyes, they will choose it for themselves.

Indeed there is no way I could “force” it on them even if I wanted to, as Christ is all about freedom, which would be immediately contradicted by a “forcing”.
 
Ivan The Terrible said:
I voted yes. But I think in time they will make there own choice. I wouldn't hate them for it.
Click to expand...

....depends on the religion, IMO.
 
Jerry said:
....depends on the religion, IMO.
Click to expand...
Meaning? If your kids choose Wicca, you'd disown them? Or Christianity should be forced, but Judaism not? What depends on the religion and how?
 
No.

I will teach my children exactly as my parents taught me. I will eduate them on the basis of different religions and let them choose the one that they feel is right for them if they wish to choose one.

Of course in the back of my mind I would hope they would take on my beliefs that most religions are correct as long as they teach peace, understanding, respect, and happiness for all life. Religion was a few good ideas that people over time made into belief system.
 
ngdawg said:
Meaning? If your kids choose Wicca, you'd disown them? Or Christianity should be forced, but Judaism not? What depends on the religion and how?
Click to expand...
Wicca? No. I have my opinions of Wicca, being a former practitioner, but choosing Wicca wouldn't disable I.T.T.'s "I wouldn't hate them for it" default position.

I would say....Satanism, where animal torture and abuse, rape, child abuse and Thaumaturgy are common practice; I would hate my child for choosing.
 
Jerry,

I would say....Satanism, where animal torture and abuse, rape, child abuse and Thaumaturgy are common practice; I would hate my child for choosing.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
Jerry said:
....depends on the religion, IMO.
Click to expand...


You would actually Hate your Kids over Religion?.....Dude you are seriously F@cked Up

My Kids 2/4/6 have so far tasted Several faiths through an exploration of different Holidays (We have Done Kwanza, Christmas,Yule, Easter, Mayday, Beltain....etc...). Personally I dont intend to tell them which is correct, if only because I think all serve the same purpose. For someone to state they could even Consider hating thier own kids, (let alone anyone else)especially over something as enlightening as religion is quite frankly....sickening to me.

By the way :

"
I would say....Satanism, where animal torture and abuse, rape, child abuse and Thaumaturgy are common practice; I would hate my child for choosing."

This is not Satanism....any more than calling for the assasination of Doctors is Christianity
 
Last edited:
I think you need to read up. What you describe is not any legitimate belief-based activity, just sick individuals.
Start here: http://www.dpjs.co.uk/modern.html
 
From a personnel point of view i was never introduced to religion till i was about 5 at school and i thought this is bullshit.

For religion to survive it has to take advantage of the the vunerable like children because there is simply no evidence and if someone gets to an age were they relise not everything is true they are more difficult to brainwash.

If i have kids i feel no need to introduce them to religion because they will learn this life is it make the most of it.
 
jfuh said:
Actually, Stanism was also used to describe early midevil scientists. Galileo was called a satanist. Coppernicous wouldn't dare publish his mathematical calculations until onto his death bed for fear of retaliation from the church.
Click to expand...
I have to appologise for long quotation , but it seems today’s science is full of half educated half ignorant individuals awarding themseves with PhDs, celebrating their ignorance and corruption, and guarding their old and rottened dogmas like mad dogs.

Nicole Oresme or Nicolas d'Oresme (c. 1323 - July 11, 1382) was an economist, mathematician, physicist, astronomer, philosopher, psychologist, and musicologist, a passionate theologian and Bishop of Lisieux, a competent translator,.. one of the principal founders and popularizers of modern sciences, and probably one of the most original thinkers of the 14th century.

Oresme's demonstration is exactly the same as that which made Galileo a celebrated person in the seventeenth century. Moreover, this law was never forgotten during the interval between Oresme and Galileo because it was taught at Oxford by William Heytesbury and his followers, then at Paris and in Italy, by all the subsequent followers of this school. In the middle of the sixteenth century, long before Galileo, the Dominican Domingo de Soto applied the law to the uniformly accelerated falling of heavy bodies and to the uniformly decreasing ascension of projectiles.

.. Oresme had a much stronger claim to be regarded as the precursor of Copernicus when one considers what he says of the diurnal motion of the earth, to which he devoted the gloss following chapters xxiv and xxv of the Traité du ciel et du monde. Oresme begins by establishing that no experiment can decide whether the heavens move form east to west or the earth from west to east; for sensible experience can never establish more than one relative motion. He then showed that the reasons proposed by the physics of Aristotle against the movement of the earth were not valid. Oresme than pointed out, in particular, the principle of the solution of the difficulty drawn from the movement of projectiles. Next he solved the objections based on the texts of Holy Scripture. In interpreting these passages he laid down rules universally followed by Catholic exegetics of the present day. Finally, he adduces the argument of simplicity for the theory that the earth moves, and not the heavens, and in the whole of his argument in favour of the earth's motion Oresme is both more explicit and much clearer than that given by Copernicus.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401– August 11, 1464) was a German cardinal of the Catholic Church, a philosopher, jurist, mathematician, and an astronomer. He is widely considered as one of the greatest geniuses and polymaths of the 15th century.

Nicholas is also considered by many to be a genius ahead of his time in the field of science. Predating Copernicus by half a century, Nicholas suggested that the earth was a nearly spherical shape that revolved around the Sun, and that each star is itself a distant sun with its own planets and inhabitants. He was not, however, describing a scientifically verifiable theory of the universe: his beliefs (which proved uncannily accurate) were based almost entirely on his own personal speculations and numerological calculations. He made important contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. Cusanus was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia



By his choice of the name Tommaso, Caccini served notice that he wished to become the new Thomas Aquinas, the order's (and the Church's) greatest theologian. In fact, his published works were derivative and third-rate. For his inflammatory sermons he was disciplined by the Archbishop of Bologna as a scandal-maker. In 1614, from the pulpit of Santa Maria Novella, Father Tommaso Caccini (1574-1648) denounced Galileo's opinions on the motion of the Earth….

…and all kind of hell broke loose. So the story is quite interesting: Galileo was not persecuted by the Church, but by a few persons, who in thier turn had problems.. And it looks like Galileo was a plagiator… false celebrity..
His works still were published – he was a devoted Catholic – the Church ‘’punished’’ him by sentencing him to Sianna – one of the most important Universities – I guess just because he had quite a grim personality and had children out of wedlock. A good producer should make a movie out of the story…. So it was quite “inside the family” scandal and frictions, not like it is misrepresented by some Caccini type of educators today.

Copernicus could never be persecuted for the things the Church knew 200 years before him…

I am wondering - are scientists really so pale and weak and norrow minded today if to compare to the giants living long before us - or we have gone in the direction which cannot produce giants anymore... it seems like we make celebrities out of ----- I would not tell ...
 
Then why all the hostility over my oposition to rape, Thomaturgy, child abuse, etc? It seems you hate me over a simple disagrement of practice, even if I am wrong on what Satanism is. Since an opinion or a point of view is lesser than a religion, since religion is a continuom of such opinions and points of view, you have delagitamised your own opinion about me.

jfuh said:
Actually, Stanism was also used to describe early midevil scientists. Galileo was called a satanist. Coppernicous wouldn't dare publish his mathematical calculations until onto his death bed for fear of retaliation from the church.
Click to expand...

I would not hate my child over this.


His holiness the Dalai Lama teaches us that Man's Buddha Nature, that is, Man's underlying, basic and most subtle nature of mind, which is present in all human beings, is completely untainted by negative emotions and/or thoughts.

The Buddhist path is one of eliminating all negativity from one's self so as to become one with the inner Buddha Nature; to express it in all ways, with every part of one's being.

In the Buddhist path, the only way we transcend the physical realm is by overcoming evil through embracing compassion and affection; which brings one true happiness.

I see no "taking advantage of the vulnerable" in that.
 
His holiness the Dalai Lama teaches us that Man's Buddha Nature, that is, Man's underlying, basic and most subtle nature of mind, which is present in all human beings, is completely untainted by negative emotions and/or thoughts.

The Buddhist path is one of eliminating all negativity from one's self so as to become one with the inner Buddha Nature; to express it in all ways, with every part of one's being.

In the Buddhist path, the only way we transcend the physical realm is by overcoming evil through embracing compassion and affection; which brings one true happiness.

I see no "taking advantage of the vulnerable" in that.[/QUOTE]
 

Having computer issues? I can sympathize :2wave:.....I've been having one of those days.....
 
Jerry said:
Having computer issues? I can sympathize :2wave:.....I've been having one of those days.....
Click to expand...

I seriously hope you arent ridiculing Buddhist teachings, though from your interpretation of Christs teachings it would not suprise me. For one to profess Christianity, and proceed to debase the Buddhist way of life is tantamount to slapping the Christ in the face, as they parallel each other in practice. I hesitate to say it but, perhaps you should re-read your bible.
 
I am at a total loss of comprehension or even speculation as to how you interpret even the possibility that I was ridiculing Buddhist teachings in any way, shape or form.
 
I may be just returning, and be new to a bunch of you, but I believe that it is to be required to raise my children in the way that is right, and I don't give a flip what the government says. That is why I am homeschooling them. I want them to know what the beliefs of evolutionists and wiccans and others who are in public schools, but they also need to know all the positions, not just the ones supported by the government. Mine, is not supported by the government.
 
i dont believe in homeschooling. public schools teach kids more than just academics, they teach them how to interact with other members of society successfully, as well as provide a place where a child can learn to live without his parents around him all the time. Home schooled kids are at a major loss when the time comes for college or higher academics.

public schools play a major role in developing a childs social skills
 
I would certainly take my children to church and introduce them to religion. However, when they are old enough to choose for themselves, I will not stand in their way.

I hope they choose to stay LDS; however, I will not force my beliefs on them.

:mrgreen:
 
The Bible says things in ways the original target audience would understand. However, the target audience of one scientific fact was God Himself, where it says "THe CIRCLE of the earth." Correctly translated, that word means sphere. YOu ask me, there is more faith included in modern science's ideas of origins than in anything. If you are wondering what curriculum, I am using Jay Wile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…