ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: Sir Sorbus on 2012-08-21, 16:25:07
-
So I was reading through this thread: http://modernchivalry.org/forum/index.php/topic,1934.0.html (http://modernchivalry.org/forum/index.php/topic,1934.0.html)
and naturally, I was very pleased and impressed with the nobility of the child. However it reminded me of another incident that is similar, but at a far more extreme level.
When at a more extreme level, these kinda things make me wonder how much of the child's personality is actually good-hearted, and how much of their behaviour is simply copied, without their own true understanding.
As an example, at my church, we had a guest speaker come in to speak about raising your kids to be strong Christians. I felt that what she said was extremely biased, irresponsible, and gave the kids no choice in their own beliefs.
What she essentially told about was how her 2 year old spoke in tongues all the time, even as they were playing with toys, and that she encourages it. This is a topic beyond the comprehension of most teenagers, let alone a toddler who cannot yet speak or make the most basic decisions on their beliefs. Undoubtedly, she was simply encouraging baby-babble, which is not in itself a bad thing. The first problem is that she is making it into something it is obviously not - and it's that kind of behaviour that give Christians a reputation for fanaticism. Secondly, even WERE the child "accidentally" speaking in tongues, it is not really her place to encourage the child to continue to do so before they are of a proper age to make their own decisions. I am all for raising children in the basic morals and ethical system of Christianity, and for giving them a basic education OF the belief system, so that when they are of a proper age, they can make their own unbiased and fair decision on what they want to believe. From even the most objective, non-religious point of view, that kind of parenting simply nurtures the child into a mindless fanatic, which is actually the epitome of hypocrisy as far as New Testament biblical teachings are concerned.
Note: I am not a parent, and thus have no experience of my own; I simply observe and learn what to do and what not to do from others should I ever have children of my own.
What are your views on combining your beliefs and your parenting?
-
I was always taught that the speaking in tongues had to do with the presence of the Holy Ghost...who is to say that children do not have a monopoly on the attentions of the Maker? What I take issue with are those who seem to be filled with the Holy Ghost at or around the same time on any given Sunday- to me some of these people are hypocritical at the least, heretical otherwise.
It is natural and considered normal for a child to be reared in his or her parents' belief system; after all, if the parents are believers, they will want their children to do so as well. Who is right and who is wrong really is the purview of God and no other...that organized religion purports to know the will of God, each religion, seems to be the highest form of delusion to me. Each one believes that they and they alone have it right- be it some flavor of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, etc ad infinitum...who is to say? People tend to gravitate to one or the other based on what they learned as they grew up and/or what they feel is 'right' at the moment...others are raised and indoctrinated into the religions of their parents.
What you believe doesn't seem to coincide with what this woman believes so you would raise your child differently, but many will be raised as this one is. Who is right? Who is wrong? Hard to tell if you're approaching the subject from as unbiased a POV as is possible to have.
-
I agree with you on all points made, however I think what I mean to suggest is that for one to accept that wisdom and truth can come from any system of faith, as I do (which is what tends to make my Christian views so unique), that the upbringing of a child should be thorough, tolerant, and not TOO biased towards the religion of the parent, which is where I found the fault in this woman's teachings. She automatically assumed that not only was she right, but that she had the undisputed right to decide exactly what her child would believe for the rest of their life. Perhaps babies do have the monopoly on the presence of the holy spirit, as you say. But that doesn't change the fact that she has ascertained herself to the fact that she is 100% right.
People who do overbias the moral upbringing of a child force the mean of the generation's tolerance and acceptance away from that point we discussed as being ideal - the point at which the child grows up to be open-minded and free-willed simultaneously. Obviously no parent or parenting style is perfect, but on the extreme end of things, as with this woman, I consider it a form of ethical irresponsibility in bringing their child up to be overly biased and close-minded.
-
I'm an atheist and sometimes, when the coffee-level is low, an anti-theist as well.
To me I cannot help but think that anytime a person tries to raise their child in a 'Faith' they are committing child abuse on some deep profound level. I was raised, very lightly, in the Reform sect of Judaism but I stopped going to temple when I was 16 because I had no friggin clue who the hell all the nutballs around me were talking to.
The truth is that religious institutions, and the people that inhabit them, make my skin crawl in the same way that mental hospitals and their patients do.
If an adult wants to become religious then more power to them, but one should not raise a kid to follow a religion the same way that one should not raise a kid to be a particular political party or to hate a particular skin color, sex, ethnicity, religion, etc.
Anyway, thats my pre-caffiene opinion.
-
Just a reminder that "politics" and "religion" are considered out-of-bounds for the forum in general, but as long as this is a discussion of ethics, I'll let it slide.
I just wanted to get this note in here early before it meanders much.
-
I agree with you on all points made, however I think what I mean to suggest is that for one to accept that wisdom and truth can come from any system of faith, as I do (which is what tends to make my Christian views so unique), that the upbringing of a child should be thorough, tolerant, and not TOO biased towards the religion of the parent, which is where I found the fault in this woman's teachings. She automatically assumed that not only was she right, but that she had the undisputed right to decide exactly what her child would believe for the rest of their life. Perhaps babies do have the monopoly on the presence of the holy spirit, as you say. But that doesn't change the fact that she has ascertained herself to the fact that she is 100% right.
People who do overbias the moral upbringing of a child force the mean of the generation's tolerance and acceptance away from that point we discussed as being ideal - the point at which the child grows up to be open-minded and free-willed simultaneously. Obviously no parent or parenting style is perfect, but on the extreme end of things, as with this woman, I consider it a form of ethical irresponsibility in bringing their child up to be overly biased and close-minded.
Ah, but that is your take on it. Mine is more or less the same as I was raised by one system of belief (Lutheran) but I'm lapsed, and I never forced my kids to go to church- how could I when I myself do not? I think you can raise your kids to be responsible, reasoning adults by teaching them to think for themselves- it is perfectly fine for a child to follow in their parents' footsteps if they are so inclined.
Children tend to mimic adults, its what they do- most won't understand the mysteries of religion until they are much older, if at all. Again, because I'm of the mind that no one's really right, at least, not completely, I see no ethical compromise w/regard to raising your child as you were raised- provided you weren't raised a bigot, racist or what have you. Naturally, those who are of that mind believe that they have the right of it, too.
-
If anyone is right or wrong religiously, with what happens after death, it's never been proven to be the case yet .. so, to each their own on that.
As far as the linked thread - religious and political aside, whether someone does a good thing because they saw their parents do it, another role model do it, or decided to do it on their own - the important thing is that they did a good thing. To question the motive diminishes the effort, IMO.
-
That was well said, Sir James. However, I do not think he was casting aspersions on Sir Wolf's daughter's actions, but giving a counterpoint to it with what he offered. I'm quite certain that wasn't his intent.
-
That was well said, Sir James. However, I do not think he was casting aspersions on Sir Wolf's daughter's actions, but giving a counterpoint to it with what he offered. I'm quite certain that wasn't his intent.
Ah, sorry, didn't mean for it to come across that way. I was just speaking to the subject in general, not directed specifically at Sir Wolf's daughter or anyone.
-
Yes, Sir William interpreted my reasons correctly. I'm rather being the Devil's Advocate, which is a position that seems to come hand-in-hand with scientist-hood. Unfortunately it is a very easily misunderstood position. Please forgive me if I have come over as harsh or blunt.
I did try to clarify that I meant no implication nor offence to Sir Wolf nor to his daughter.
Also, thankyou, Sir Edward, for understanding the true cause of this thread. It really is more about combining bigotry and parenting, with religion as the example used.
That being said, I would be heartbroken should my future kids not share my love of fantasy. People who enjoy fantasy tend to be more agreeable, on the most part. I think that primitive (Perhaps not the right word? I mean the very stereotype Arthurian tales.) fantasy seems to subtly teach morals through their often often-the-top good and evil characters. I also think that, particularly for children with Asperger's as I was, it very cleanly defines that line between good and evil, rather than the added emotional complication of grey areas and over-rebellious anti-heroes.
-
It didn't come off harsh or blunt to me at all, and certainly no offense taken. In trying to keep off the subject of religion or politics, I tried to avoid the example given, and "paint with a broad brush" in saying that good deeds should be appreciated as good deeds and left at that. :)
As for the parenting part, it's a mixed bag. I don't have my own kids yet, but I have some "adopted" (not legally) kids that called my wife and I mom and dad for the last 12 years. We don't send them to school, but take them to the zoo, movies, etc, and the youngest I carried around (literally) from age 1 to 7 or 8. Let me tell you, a 7 year old on the neck for miles across the zoo for hours is more tiresome than armor will ever be. ;) Based on that....
As a parent, I'd want to raise my kids in a similar mindset as myself; after all, that's the environment they'll grow up in, and likely absorb whether it's specifically taught or not. In my case, that will mean honor, integrity, chivalry, being a hard worker, and when the time comes, having fun too. It will mean respecting men and women alike, and earning things instead of begging for them. It will mean being tolerant of others with different thoughts or beliefs. Not to throw the first punch, but if a punch is thrown, respond accordingly. And as they get older, that there is a line between good and evil that is not black and white all the time.
I know some people who are religiously fanatical. That's perfectly fine with me; everything has their excessive enthusiasm placed somewhere (mine is medieval arms & armor .. and sometimes, cars). If they raise their kids that way, that's fine too; I feel I have no more grounds to intrude upon their parenting than they do mine; that is, until it becomes detrimental to the child in some way, or instills and provokes hatred and/or intolerance. As Sir William said, there is hatred and bigotry instilled in children that isn't religiously based in any way, and that's just wrong.
IMO, teaching and encouraging speaking in tongues is rather loony; but at the same time, I accept that some people would say the same thing about teaching my children to accept differences between people and to open doors for women. Or that I'd encourage my kids to take Latin classes, since I did for a few years. Or that I'd put them in armor as teenagers. Or that I'd let them learn to use weapons when they've shown they are responsible enough to.
Regardless of their upbringing, in most cases, when a child is old enough, they're exposed to enough in the world that they will choose and make their own path - religious and otherwise - obviously there are exceptions like cults, but generally speaking....
-
Well, responding to the OP, I think what that woman is doing is irresponsible, and is going to have her kid running about spouting off nonsense whilst believing themselves some kind of prophet. Then again, I have some bias, because I'm a Catholic, and closest we come to otherworldly speech is Latin...
We also leave the decision up to the child. You see, Baptism isn't the same thing as a commitment to the Catholic Church. For that we have Confirmation, where at a age of maturity (for me 16) the teenager decides for themselves whether or not they wish to be Catholic.
We also don't believe that we hold the monopoly on salvation. We believe that anyone can enter heaven, no matter their creed, if they lived in a good and Godly (Not necessarily Catholic) manner. In fact, our main reason for legitimacy isn't because we're the only true faith, but because the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ.
I'm glad my folks raised (and are raising) me Catholic. I feel no lack of spiritual or intellectual fulfillment, and when I get around to having children, they will attend mass and I will do my best to explain the true teachings and morals of the Church and life itself. However, when the age of Confirmation rolls about, it's their choice.
-
Yes, I agree with that train of thought, in that it's up to the child to decide for themself, when they reach an appropriate age, be it with Catholicism, or Pentecostalism, or Baptistism, or anything else, religious or secular.
However, Catholicism was not for me. The whole Catholic system, I find, is based on beaucracy.
But that's probably getting a bit too far into the religious debate side of things.
Parents enforcing bigotry is what bothers me. At that age, a child can't tell right from wrong, so it's a form of manipulation, I feel, to enforce them into anything morally, politically or religiously far from the norm. At the same time, it's important for them to have an education in these things, so that they can make a well-thought-out and responsible decision when the age of maturity comes.
-
Some could claim we're a bureaucratic religion, but we see it as having a strong church hierarchy, and promoting unification among the diocese and parishes.
Anyhow, the whole protestant thing isn't for me either. Felt too much like a party than a service, though I do understand to them it's a joyous celebration to God. Anyhow, each to his own. :)
-
Proverbs 22:6.
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
stands to mean morally, spiritually and in common sense. to many people let the tv or the world teach their children. more parents stop focusing on themselves and being selfish with their personal space or time the better the world will be.
-
Well, responding to the OP, I think what that woman is doing is irresponsible, and is going to have her kid running about spouting off nonsense whilst believing themselves some kind of prophet. Then again, I have some bias, because I'm a Catholic, and closest we come to otherworldly speech is Latin...
We also leave the decision up to the child. You see, Baptism isn't the same thing as a commitment to the Catholic Church. For that we have Confirmation, where at a age of maturity (for me 16) the teenager decides for themselves whether or not they wish to be Catholic.
We also don't believe that we hold the monopoly on salvation. We believe that anyone can enter heaven, no matter their creed, if they lived in a good and Godly (Not necessarily Catholic) manner. In fact, our main reason for legitimacy isn't because we're the only true faith, but because the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ.
I'm glad my folks raised (and are raising) me Catholic. I feel no lack of spiritual or intellectual fulfillment, and when I get around to having children, they will attend mass and I will do my best to explain the true teachings and morals of the Church and life itself. However, when the age of Confirmation rolls about, it's their choice.
Excellent outlook, Sir Nathan. You have come alot further in your level of maturity & viewpoints/lessons of life earlier than most your age. Your insight should always be your first intuitive outlook on all things you encounter in life & in all decisions you make. You express greater thought process & reflection in your statements than others I have seen. Whether based on your religious upbringing, faith, or open-minded outlook, you express yourself soundly & with good-intention and acknowledge consequences as a part of your decision making process. You will be much wiser in life for this. :)
-
I thank you Lord Dane for your kind words. I do try my best to understand as much as I can, and am but still young, and doubtlessly have much more to understand. :)
-
Well, responding to the OP, I think what that woman is doing is irresponsible, and is going to have her kid running about spouting off nonsense whilst believing themselves some kind of prophet. Then again, I have some bias, because I'm a Catholic, and closest we come to otherworldly speech is Latin...
We also leave the decision up to the child. You see, Baptism isn't the same thing as a commitment to the Catholic Church. For that we have Confirmation, where at a age of maturity (for me 16) the teenager decides for themselves whether or not they wish to be Catholic.
We also don't believe that we hold the monopoly on salvation. We believe that anyone can enter heaven, no matter their creed, if they lived in a good and Godly (Not necessarily Catholic) manner. In fact, our main reason for legitimacy isn't because we're the only true faith, but because the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ.
I'm glad my folks raised (and are raising) me Catholic. I feel no lack of spiritual or intellectual fulfillment, and when I get around to having children, they will attend mass and I will do my best to explain the true teachings and morals of the Church and life itself. However, when the age of Confirmation rolls about, it's their choice.
Excellent outlook, Sir Nathan. You have come alot further in your level of maturity & viewpoints/lessons of life earlier than most your age. Your insight should always be your first intuitive outlook on all things you encounter in life & in all decisions you make. You express greater thought process & reflection in your statements than others I have seen. Whether based on your religious upbringing, faith, or open-minded outlook, you express yourself soundly & with good-intention and acknowledge consequences as a part of your decision making process. You will be much wiser in life for this. :)
Yes Lord_Dane our Sir Nathan is a most impressive young knight, wise beyond his years yet tempered with genuine humility and sincere courtesy. :)
-
I thank you Lord Dane for your kind words. I do try my best to understand as much as I can, and am but still young, and doubtlessly have much more to understand. :)
Wise indeed. How old are you, out of curiosity?
-
Thank you sir Brian, not only for the kind words, but also for the guidance to stay on a path of wisdom. Make no mistake, my Knighthood is and has truly been a guiding force in my growth and development.
Lord Dane, I am 17.
-
Thank you sir Brian, not only for the kind words, but also for the guidance to stay on a path of wisdom. Make no mistake, my Knighthood is and has truly been a guiding force in my growth and development.
Lord Dane, I am 17.
A mistake made by me on this forum quite often. LOL That quote was from "Sir Sorbus", Sir Nathan. Not I. :) I already know your age.
-
So many Sirs and Lords, it gets quite confusing. :)
-
LOL @ the mis-quotes...as Lord Dane has said, it happens.
-
Thank you sir Brian, not only for the kind words, but also for the guidance to stay on a path of wisdom. Make no mistake, my Knighthood is and has truly been a guiding force in my growth and development.
Lord Dane, I am 17.
Yes, it was I that asked. I, too, am 17. Perhaps, then, I am not the youngest? :D
-
Thank you sir Brian, not only for the kind words, but also for the guidance to stay on a path of wisdom. Make no mistake, my Knighthood is and has truly been a guiding force in my growth and development.
Lord Dane, I am 17.
Yes, it was I that asked. I, too, am 17. Perhaps, then, I am not the youngest? :D
Well if it is a comfort to younglings, I have some garments older than either of you! ;)
-
ya isn't it always scary Sir Brian? I have pfc's in my ww2 group that i am in charge of that it donned on me last event that i was more than twice their age hahahaha then i realized i was 18 twice! hahaha scary
-
Whoops, meant Sir Sorbus :P It would seem that any wisdom I do have abruptly ends when it comes to reading names beside posts.... ;)
-
Back towards the party feeling in some congregations, I know what you mean. By now the Protestant denoms are a spectrum of belief and practice. Given how I was raised in the faith such an atmosphere makes me uncomfortable. Other believers are uncomfortable without it. It all boils down to comfort level, familiarity, and perhaps how adventurous a person feels I guess.
Parents will generally decide on what they believe is the right level of involvement and instruction in their religion and ethics, whether or not society approves. This will never change and on the whole (there are some negative examples) I don't generally see much harm come from it. However, regardless of parenting and instruction children are remarkably good at making their own choices once grown. :-)
Oh yeah, hi!
-
I don't mean to take away from the topic at hand, but how are you Sir Ancelyn? It's been a while. Good to see you again.
-
I used to be extremely religious to the point where it made me delusional about stuff. Later when I recovered from that fiasco I have become atheistic but still follow a set of morals. Though some would say I am immoral I dont believe in a black and white (good and evil) anymore like western religion in general does because thats what made me delusional. I guess people with strong emotions are more prone to fanaticism in general. I've always had extreme emotions about things though, since the time I was a kid.
-
Have you accepted the Doctor as the Earths one and only true savior & protector? ;)
-
What?!?
-
Sir William, we have a classic case of British culture invasion, of the subtype Dr Who.
Ivan, he only has so many regenerations you know, he won't be there forever.
-
Yes but Captain Jack Harkness & Agent Rex Matheson will!
Captain Jack Harkness Deaths (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paNJDUPilWc#)
-
Sir William, we have a classic case of British culture invasion, of the subtype Dr Who.
Ivan, he only has so many regenerations you know, he won't be there forever.
Thank you, Sir Nathan. When I posted that originally I was clueless- a post of his on another thread illuminated it for me.
-
No problem. Always happy to alert others to be on guard from the new English culture attack!