1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's considered a gift of the Holy Spirit within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Essentially, the person praying achieves a state of rapture (not to be confused with the Rapture) where he begins to speak rapidly (and involuntarily) in some unknown language (which sounds a lot like gibberish).
What exactly is 'praying in tongues'?
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut why does it worry you? It thought you were supporting indoctrination etc earlier in the thread, so long as the childrens parents were in favour and so long as there was a non violent trend. Or is it only OK when the content is Christian?
Let's be clear -- I have no problems with them praying that God may guide GWB (or whoever the current President is) to nominate anti-abortion judges. It's the personal glorification of Bush that worries me.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI recognise that indoctrination is an inevitable, even necessary, part of bringing up children. As long as the children's parents are in favour and the content is non-violent and does not advocate causing harm to another person, I think that society has no right to interfere in the process (EDIT: naturally society will also attempt to indoctrinate the child; but I am talking about something like physical intervention or censorship).
But why does it worry you? It thought you were supporting indoctrination etc earlier in the thread, so long as the childrens parents were in favour and so long as there was a non violent trend. Or is it only OK when the content is Christian?
That doesn't mean I endorse every such message that children are indoctrinated with. An atheist parent might indoctrinate his child with a viewpoint I disagree with; however I think I have no right to interfere.
Does that make things clearer to you?
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think you have the right to interfere (in a political, not direct way) when:
That doesn't mean I endorse every such message that children are indoctrinated with. An atheist parent might indoctrinate his child with a viewpoint I disagree with; however I think I have no right to interfere.
Does that make things clearer to you?
- You consider it is detrimental for the child;
- You consider that such upbringing can affect you negatively in the future.
Originally posted by PalynkaI would agree with that, but with the clause that both situtations must be in the extreme and prooven. Otherwise you would have to 'interfere' with all religous practices involving children.
I think you have the right to interfere (in a political, not direct way) when:
- You consider it is detrimental for the child;
- You consider that such upbringing can affect you negatively in the future.
Originally posted by PalynkaWas it you who brought up the difference between Secularism and Laicism?
I think you have the right to interfere (in a political, not direct way) when:
- You consider it is detrimental for the child;
- You consider that such upbringing can affect you negatively in the future.
- You consider it is detrimental for the child
"Detrimental" is too vague a term and can be applied to virtually any event involved in child-rearing.
Naturally, if it causes direct physical harm to the child or places the child in an unreasonable amount of physical danger, then society must have laws to protect the child. Most civilised societies already do.
Even with mental harm/trauma society must have laws to prevent unreasonable/reasonably avoidable hurt to the child.
But a question of what is "detrimental" in the long term is too wide a question and too open to manipulation.
- You consider that such upbringing can affect you negatively in the future.
Once again, the criteria is too vague for application. Would you consider the upbringing of a child brought up in a Democrat household one that "can affect you negatively" because Democrats generally have higher tax rates?
That's why I have emphasised non-violence and respect for human rights and the rule of law in indoctrination -- beyond that you would be interfering in the normal process of upbringing (certain societies have done that in the past with not too great results).
Originally posted by Bosse de NageReligion seems to be a fundamental element in Scouting, although its mainly non-sectarian. As soon as a gay Scout steps out of the lean-to, however, the religious ideology steps front and center. Although I'm the father of two Eagle Scouts, I find a great deal of frightening religion and politics in Scouting. Perhaps things are different in South Africa (where Scouting traces its origins as a para-military training).
I'd be very concerned if my local scout troop added religion and politics to normal scouting activities. Wouldn't you?
Originally posted by WulebgrAtheists are barred from being scouts.
Religion seems to be a fundamental element in Scouting, although its mainly non-sectarian. As soon as a gay Scout steps out of the lean-to, however, the religious ideology steps front and center. Although I'm the father of two Eagle Scouts, I find a great deal of frightening religion and politics in Scouting. Perhaps things are different in South Africa (where Scouting traces its origins as a para-military training).
Scout pledge:
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
To obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettBecause of the exclusionist policies of the Boy Scouts, an alternate, secular scouting organization has been started up, called Camp Quest.
Atheists are barred from being scouts.
Scout pledge:
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
To obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
http://michigan.camp-quest.com/
As it says on their home page, it's open "to the children of Freethinkers, Humanists, Agnostics, Atheists, or however people choose to describe their naturalistic (not supernatural) world view."
Now, in the interest of fairness (and to prolong the argument longer) we'll throw this out to the theists (or non-theists, I guess) to see if they think this is merely a secular version of Jesus Camp. Is there any substantive difference between the two? If so, is it a difference of degree, or a difference of kind? Is it just a fun camp for worthless sinners? Is it indoctrination? Is it Brainwashing?
Edit: As an aid, here's their mission statement:
Camp Quest Mission Statement:
Camp Quest's purpose is to provide children of irreligious parents with a residential summer camp, dedicated to improving the human condition through rational inquiry, critical and creative thinking, scientific method, self-respect, ethics, competency, democracy, free speech, and the separation of religion and government guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, it was me. Why do you ask?
Was it you who brought up the difference between Secularism and Laicism?
[b]- You consider it is detrimental for the child
"Detrimental" is too vague a term and can be applied to virtually any event involved in child-rearing.
Naturally, if it causes direct physical harm to the child or places the child in an unreasonable amount of physica ...[text shortened]... of upbringing (certain societies have done that in the past with not too great results).[/b]
As for the rest, I agree with twhitehead.
I agree with you that there's a fundamental difference between indoctrination and brainwashing, but for me (and this is where I think we disagree) of the core differences between them is that indoctrination appeals to a highlighting the advantages of a choice and brainwashing frequently denies the possibility of any choice.