Question for religious parents

-L. wrote:
Barbara wrote:
The question wasn't related to people who want to jam religion down
your throat. The question was whether your average religious person
would mind their kid being friendly with an atheist child. I thought
not. Then someone popped up saying that she would prefer that her
child not associate with *bible thumpers* -- which in that context I
took to mean *any* religious person.

"Bible thumper" is slang for an Evangelical Christian.

Yes ... and a rather derogatory slang, I might add. But not every
religious person is an Evangelical Xtian. Or a *bible thumper* Marie
has since stated that her post was not intended as I read it. My
point, however, remains.

And I maintain -- why is it
*more* acceptable for non-religious people to shun religious people
than vice versa? Perhaps I misinterpreted the words of the OP, and
what she REALLY meant to say was that while she welcomed her children's
friendships not only with people in the communities she mentioned, but
with religious people of all persuasions, she would prefer that they
need befriend the children of prostelytizers.

Frankly, I've encountered a lot more NON-religious people who feel free
to call me crazy for my beliefs, and who challenge me at every step,
than I ever have religious people trying to proselytize. I find both
equally offensive, however.

Again, however, most *religious* people do not proselytize.

I disagree. I suspect those who proselytize consider themselves *very*
religious.

-L.

Of course they do, Lyn. But the fact that most people who proselytize
are religious does not mean that most religious people proselytize.
(Most rapists are men. That doesn't mean all men are rapists.)
Moreover, it doesn't change my experience that many of my non-religious
friends feel free to comment on and criticize my religion observance.
Yet if I were to so much as suggest that they might get something out
of it, I would be considered obnoxious. Its quite the double
standard.

Barbara

Barbara

Barbara, I think your experiences are the exception to the rule
honestly...most non religious people don't have any reason to tell
religious people how to live thier lives. Religious people on the other
hand do have a personal reason for doing so, and that is that they fear
people going to hell and/or they are told that they are supposed to by
thier interpretation of the bible or thier preachers.

So I don't doubt this happens now and then, but by and large, it's the
other way around.

Barbara wrote:

Yes ... and a rather derogatory slang, I might add. But not every
religious person is an Evangelical Xtian. Or a *bible thumper*

Well, that sort of goes without saying, doesn't it?


snip


Again, however, most *religious* people do not proselytize.

I disagree. I suspect those who proselytize consider themselves *very*
religious.

-L.

Of course they do, Lyn. But the fact that most people who proselytize
are religious does not mean that most religious people proselytize.

I guess I have problems with the word "most". I don't know how you
could ever determine whether or not "most" religious people
proselytize simply because what one person considers "religious"
another does not. Change it to "many" and I would agree.


(Most rapists are men. That doesn't mean all men are rapists.)
Moreover, it doesn't change my experience that many of my non-religious
friends feel free to comment on and criticize my religion observance.
Yet if I were to so much as suggest that they might get something out
of it, I would be considered obnoxious. Its quite the double
standard.

That's not been my experience. In fact, I have found the atheists and
agnostics extremely tolerant of those who are observant Christians,
Jews, Hindus, etc. within my circle of experience, both professionally
and personally. The only things I have ever seen an agnostic or
atheist get upset about are proselytization, and those who seek to
convert Biblical law into Federal law. They generally don't take
kindly to the mixing of church and state.

-L.

toypup wrote:
"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...

There was a case - in one of the Carolinas (?) where the young boy
(grade school age) was coming to school and preaching on the
playground (I mean the kind of preaching that was LOUD) and telling
not only the other children but also the teachers that they were going
to hell. His parents felt that this was his right to do under free
speech and freedom to practice his religion. OTOH this was on public
property (not a private or religious school) where religion shouldn't
be practiced. [Note - this is a US public and private school - I know
the terminology is different in England]

The teachers did not care for him telling them that they were going to
hell as they felt it was disrespectful and disruptive (which it was).
The parents of the other children were upset and so were the children
themselves. I don't remember how this was resolved.


I remember that. I think most of it was the parents' doing. They
encouraged it, but only of their sons. The girl was not allowed to do it
because it was the boys' job. Their DD just stood behind the boys and
handed out leaflets. They had the poor kids on the talk shows, using
language I doubt most kids understood.



Yeah, one of the news briefs here (3rd from bottom) describes it:

http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1988_June/News_Briefs.htm

I don't know what finally happened (other than the kids' suspension); I
couldn't find any reference to a court case.

Clisby

wrote:
No, of course not. How else do we get to make converts? :-)

I assume by your smiley that you are mostly teasing right? Because that
is another thing I worry about, not just for my daughter but for
myself. I just want to live my life, I don't want religious pressures
from anyone at all.

I don't want to take your words out of context but, comments like these
make a lot of atheists angry because it's almost a threat that
translates into "we'll get you yet"...I dunno.

Well, depending on how you define "religious pressures," you may want
to consider whether you and your daughter should be open to friendships
with folks of any religious bent.

The high school youth group from my church take an annual service trip
to Appalachia to help repair houses during spring break. They often
invite friends to accompany them. There is no dissection of the guests'
beliefs, no urging anyone to "give your life to Jesus," no "friendly
reminder" about now the time to choose between eternal salvation and
eternal damnation. There are brief prayers as a group before meals, and
my guess is that they play Christian rock in the van on the way down
(my daughter didn't go; my sons aren't yet old enough).

A friend whom I believe may be athiest (we've not discussed this, over
the 12 years I've known her) told me last summer that her daughter had
accompanied the group the previous year. My friend had nothing but
good things to say about her daughter's experience. Her daughter has
since not joined, nor has anyone pressured the family to attend.
Similarly, my kids might invite your kids for jr. high youth group not
to "save their souls" but to play games and eat pizza.

And if we became good friends, I might mention over a potluck dinner
that I'd got the recipe out of our church cookbook; or, if you ask
about good nursery schools or day cares in the area, respond with the
names of those our church operates; or, if I got indications that you
were looking for a way to establish more connections in the community,
invite you (once!) to come with us to a service. I don't consider that
pressure any more than I considered it pressure to ask other moms of
toddlers to our playgroup. I have felt in-your-fact, high-pressured
tactics in some faith communities that I disliked, as many people have,
and so our church deliberately keep things low key. But perhaps those
who regard any mention of religion as "pressure" wouldn't want to know
my family or me -- it is part of who we are.

Lori G.
Milwaukee

Barbara writes:

Yep, I know what the word means. And again, in context, I understood
that the person to whose post I was responding categorized ALL religious
people as *Bible thumpers* -- and that she would prefer that her
children not associate with any of them.

But can you explain *why* you understood that? There was nothing in the
post to suggest that, as far as I could see. She said she wanted to keep
her children away from "Bible thumpers", not from religious people in
general. I think you're reading a suggestion that wasn't there.

I don't think proselytising atheists are any more acceptable than
proselytising religious people. I do, however, think they're a *lot* less
common. I can believe that people who bring up religion in the presence of
an atheist sometimes get more than they bargained for *in reply*, but I
just don't find plausible the picture of the atheist hairdresser checking
that the client doesn't believe any of this religious nonsense before
proceeding to cut the client's hair, to reverse an example that was given
in the thread. It just doesn't happen, IME.

Sidheag
DS Colin Oct 27 2003

"-L." wrote in
oups.com:


Chookie wrote:

snip


No, of course not. How else do we get to make converts?
:-)

God I hate that attitude.

hence the smiley...

snip

From a Christian POV, religious
discussion produces Christians.

And that one as well. FWIW not all "Christians" share
those beliefs.

of course not. but evangelicals are "called" to spread the
word (i think that is supposed to be capitallized)...
IME, the absolute *worst* for rabid Christianity are those
recently converted themselves, kinda like ex-smokers crusading
against tobacco. however, those people are either ignorable or
avoidable in most cases.
i "lost" an excellent veterinarian when he was converted from
agnostic Jew to evangelical Christianity (thankfully i had
already quit dating him). i just refuse to deal with a
business that answers the phone with "Praise the Lord"... no
matter how great a vet he was.
my town has an after school program *in* the school run by
the local evangelical church. there's one more reason my son
won't be attending public school here. no, he wouldn't have to
join, but the peer pressure if you don't (especially for a kid
that is 'odd' already) is just awful.
lee

--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

Chookie wrote:
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:


Neither your child nor you should be discussing religion
with other folks. There's a reason Miss Manners declares religion
out of bounds for polite social conversation.


Yep. No discussing religion, politics, sex or death.

The only problem is that IME this means that some people *never* get around to
thinking about these subjects (well, apart from sex, I imagine!) at all...
until a crisis occurs. They then suffer a great deal from having to grow so
much in a short time. For one example, see "Sofia Petrovna", by Lydia
Chukovskaya -- I believe it's available in translation now. Or you may
already know people who refuse to think. They've always voted for party X,
thank you very much...

Most of interesting subjects have political or religious overtones, anyhow.
Even the weather, these days! I wonder what Miss Manners *does* talk about.

I don't really think it's a problem at all. You develop
close frienships where you can talk about more personal/sensitive
things. There are forums where such talk is appropriate. There
are lots of ways to get information, and lots of venues for having
appropriate discussions. You just don't bring it up in exactly
the sorts of contexts that the OP is worried about. You only
discuss these sensitive subjects in situations where it's not
going to ambush other people by putting them in uncomfortable
situations. I think most people do wonder about these sensitive
issues at one time or another, and can find appropriate places
to discuss them when they do.
And, there are plenty of other things to discuss, at
least in my experience. People have interesting lives. All
you have to do is ask some broad, non-invasive questions and
all sorts of safe topics usually pop up.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Sidheag McCormack wrote:
Barbara writes:

Yep, I know what the word means. And again, in context, I understood
that the person to whose post I was responding categorized ALL religious
people as *Bible thumpers* -- and that she would prefer that her
children not associate with any of them.

But can you explain *why* you understood that? There was nothing in the
post to suggest that, as far as I could see. She said she wanted to keep
her children away from "Bible thumpers", not from religious people in
general. I think you're reading a suggestion that wasn't there.

I accept that's not what Marie meant, since she since clarified what
she said. But here's how it went:

Q: Will religious people (NOT *Bible thumpers*) allow their kids to be
friends with atheists.

A: I prefer that my kids not be friends with *Bible thumpers*

(*Do you let your children go to Steve's house?* *I would never permit
my child to go to the house of a child molester* Do you read in *But
Steve's house is just fine; its just child molesters I don't like* or
do you read *I think Steve is a child molester* Well, that's what
happened here.)


Well, the QUESTION had nothing to DO with *Bible thumpers* It had to
do with ordinary, religious people. Assuming that the ANSWER referred
to the QUESTION, rather than to something from left field, it appeared
that all religious people were being referred to as *Bible thumpers*
Otherwise, the answer SHOULD have indicated that while most religious
people are just fine and dandy, there are a few *Bible thumpers* that
are problematic.

I don't think proselytising atheists are any more acceptable than
proselytising religious people. I do, however, think they're a *lot* less
common. I can believe that people who bring up religion in the presence of
an atheist sometimes get more than they bargained for *in reply*, but I
just don't find plausible the picture of the atheist hairdresser checking
that the client doesn't believe any of this religious nonsense before
proceeding to cut the client's hair, to reverse an example that was given
in the thread. It just doesn't happen, IME.

Well, I'm glad that you're so able to dismiss all of my life
experiences as a complete lie. Come on down to my office some time,
and hear friends and colleagues I've known for years tell me that its
really OK for me to eat non-kosher food, that's not what G-d meant.
Listen to secular friends telling me how difficult I am because I won't
get in a car on Shabbos, or eat at a non-kosher restaurant. Hear
secular people berate us as *separationist* because our kids don't play
in their sports leagues -- which they schedule on Shabbos, when we
can't play. Or people simply out and out tell me that I'm nuts.

A favorite story of mine -- I was in the park with One, chatting with a
secular friend. A few religious boys (black pants, white shirts,
payas, large velvet kippot) were playing baseball in the area where
kids normally play baseball (its not really a field, but kids have been
using that area for years). Secular people were tsk-tsking about how
THOSE kids were playing so THEIR kids couldn't. So my son -- wearing
jeans, tee shirt and baseball cap, and looking about as secular as the
next kid -- went over and said *can I play* *Sure; you bat last*
Within 10 minutes, there were kids of every race and religion, secular
and religious, happily playing baseball. There were just too many
assumptions being made by the secular people.

Barbara

In article ,
"Marie" wrote:

I was raised in baptist churches, and the children and teens were always
given tracts to pass out to sinners. We were taught that one of the things
to show you were a Christian was to witness to others.

I would describe the desire to prostyletize more generously: when I was
a teen, I genuinely believed that anyone who didn't convert was going to
hell. Thus, if I loved people, I truely wanted them to "find Jesus" so
they wouldn't suffer eternal damnation.

Remebering that makes me more tolerant towards those who would try to
convert me.

However, it doesn't mean I have to put up with it -- it just means I'm
polite about stopping them.

If it weren't for people who were willing to talk about thier religions,
I never would have found Unitarian Universalism -- before a discussion
with several other mothers when my babies were infants, I had been
unaware that such a liberal faith existed. So I am loath to insist that
religion be treated as something that can't be discussed. It just has
to be respectful discussion.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care