Child Rearing Practices

[Joe Baker]

And Joe, calling someone else sinful, no matter how much you love them, is still not quite right. What if his religion thinks some things that are intrinsicially a part of you, not possible to be changed, such as having brown hair, are sinful? How would that make you feel about how much he loved you? To me, it is about acceptance, unconditional loving. I think that if you even apply the label of sin to something that a person cannot change, then you have already gone too far. There is starting to be ample evidence that heterosexuality and homosexuality, and the orientations in the middle, are determined by the mix of hormones while the child is in the womb. That would seem to be beyond personal choice as it is usually defined.

MA

Remember, it's part and parcel of the Christian faith that ALL are sinful. When people actually understand this, they know that they are in no position of superiority over anyone else. So all brown-haired people (assuming, as is most likely, that Jesus' hair was black) ARE sinful (and yes, I do have brown hair).

The Bible teaches many things, but two of the most important are (1) that all people are sinners, and (2) that all are redeemable through Christ. In explaining that we are all sinners, a great many examples of sin are names. One of them is homosexuality. People who reject the Bible won't believe that. Okay. I accept the Bible, so I do believe it. But it doesn't really bear on me, because that's a temptation I don't have. I'm plenty busy dealing with MY sins, WITHOUT running around trying to figure out what other people's are.

As to the causes of difference in sexual orientation, I must say that I don't know. I'm not sure I see why it matters. Not to equate the two -- just to explain that "natural" doesn't mean "right" -- but suppose it's my "nature" to steal. It might be "natural" for me, but it's wrong. I have to choose between yielding to that "nature" or overcoming it. If I believe it's wrong (and I do) I must try to overcome my "nature" and not steal. That says nothing about what I WILL do, just what I WON'T do. Likewise, it is MY "nature" to find women other than my wife attractive, and to desire them. But even though that desire is "natural", to yield to it would be wrong. So I resist that "natural" urge. Finally, it's my "nature" to give to my children, which no one thinks is wrong. So in this instance, yielding to my nature -- up to a point, anyway -- is good. So the question of good and evil is not determined by "nature". What does decide? Humanists would say that the test is whether anyone else is hurt by our actions; but if that's the case, we wouldn't know if something is 'wrong' until we know the consequences. For example, it wouldn't be 'wrong' for me to have an affair, as long as my wife didn't find out. I just can't buy that. I believe that there is a God, and that he has revealed his standards in the Bible. I don't expect everyone to use that as their standard; but I use it as mine.

Ultimately, we each have to figure out what we believe and live by it. Thomaji thinks I'm wrong to teach my kids religion; I think he's wrong to engage in homosexuality. Each of us has the right, though, to do what we think is right, and neither of us has the right to force our will on the other.
_________________________________
Joe Baker, who often hears of Christians trying to force their religion on others, but has seldom seen it tried and never seen it tried successfully.

[elimia]

Well, on having kids....it's not like the population is dropping at an alarming rate, you know? People who have kids because they "should" really "should not." The only reason to have kids is if you have a tremendous love that you want to focus on a little human being. Too many people have a kid for the opposite reason....to have a little human being who looks up to them and gives THEM love. Wrong, wrong, wrong!! Then you end up with another messed-up kid who never got the love he needed, because his entire reason for being brought into the world was backwards.

And to bloke, who commented on my views matching the opposite political party from the one he assumes I'm aligned with. The problem with the opposite political party is that it wants to cram its religion down my throat, and it is completely controlled by big business. I'll never, ever, support a party with those goals. I'll support the environment first and personal rights second; if we continue to ruin the planet we won't have anywhere for our kids to live, and if we continue to take away personal rights our kids won't have any choices left in how to live their lives on the ruined planet.

MA

AMEN TO MARY ANN!!!!!!! The environment is #1 in my life as it should be in everyones. I view humans as what they are - another species. We have no right to place so much hubris in our race that we have the right to do as we please on this planet at the expense of the Earth, whether you believe in a god or not. I'm always amazed on how much $ NASA gets to look for life on other planets when we can't even discover all the species on this planet before they are going extinct due to us.

Back to the thread....I like nice children whom are being raised to become free-thinking, respectful, responsible human beings. As much as I like kids, the first thing MA was talking about is THE reason we aren't having kids of our own. We might consider adopting one day in the future once our active lives are a little more settled. We live surrounded by 'breeders' and don't have to go far to find a reason we don't want children. I know we would do a good job, we just have other things more important to us - us. Not in a selfish way, just 2 people that have no desire to change a good thing.

Elimia, thinking that we can't continue to support this many humans on this earth inperpetuity.

[Daryl Fletcher]

[elimia]

Ok, when I think "breeder" the way the term has been used in this discussion, I think about people who irresponsibly bring offspring into the world like any other animal would, basically like dogs and cats. Now, if human beings are just another species, then why is this such a bad thing?

- Cats and dogs don't require we clear greenspace to make roads to drive the cars we have to have, dam rivers to supply water to mass populations, leave streams full of acid mine drainage because we need coal to power the TV's to watch 'Survivor', and clearcut rainforests in BrAzil to grow cheap beef to sell to Wal-Mar so people can buy cheap hamburger, and slaughter poor people a half a world away so we can get cheap oil to drive our SUV's 20 mph over the speed limit with the air conditioning rolling. They can forage for themselves if they have to. Sorry for the rant!

I know we would do a good job, we just have other things more important to us - us. Not in a selfish way, just 2 people that have no desire to change a good thing.

The environment is important to me too, and I don't think we should abuse it. For some odd reason, though, I find being a good Daddy to my son even more important. Lots of people can do their part to help the environment. Only one person has the job of being a father so my son.

- I'm not knocking you raising your son, I just don't see the need to bring another child into this world. If I want one, I'll recycle a human (adoption)


Daryl, thinking that there's not quite enough of my generation to take care of all the aging baby boomers.[/quote]

- Exactly, you addressed the concern precisely - too many people to take care of!

[elimia]

I'm not going to get into the first part as I'm a very happy person who fully realizes how wonderful and blessed his life is. My life is about more than what I own or what services I can buy, nuff said.

I can't let the next part go as the current administration has tried to shove this down our throats for too long...And I dislike both parties equally, this is non-partisan.

If we were concerned about subduing terrorism, why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? They were mostly responsible for 9/11, not Iraq, check your facts. If you listen to what Washington tells you, be very afraid. Fighting terrorism in Iraq is a red herring - it was an excuse to stabilize the world oil markets. Thanks to us, there now IS a terrorist state in Iraq.

I think war is the lowest point in human affairs and should be avoided at all costs. But if we're talking about worthwhile conflicts...World War II - that was a war worth fighting. There WAS demonstrable, irrefutable evidence that the stability of the entirety of western Europe and potentially a large part of the globe was at stake. And that little thing called the holocaust - THAT was something we should have been all over in the beginning. I have every right to question this conflict as I still haven't seen evidence that has compelled us to spend about $150 billion dollars without proof. I wish getting a loan at the bank without the paperwork was that easy.

Don't you think it is odd that there were gvmt memos within the first few weeks of the current adminstration that wanted the DOD to be looking into removing Hussein BEFORE 9/11 happened? And if it is about removing tyrants, why aren't we removing Charles Taylor in Liberia, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, or Omar al-Bashir of Sudan (notable that in 20 years, 2 million people are dead and 3.5-4 million people uprooted). Why - no oil, or no oil that can quickly keep the world oil economy afloat.

Elimia, who highly values human life but just wants the sheer #s to be in balance and wishes there were no political parties in America.

[Daryl Fletcher]

[Tubaryan12]

thomaji wrote:

I meant in finding their own religion, rules and boundaries can be set without it

I am not religious in any way. That being said, any parent that believes in any religion will NEVER allow their children to find their own way when it comes to religion. No one would take that chance any more than they would let a 2 yr old cross the street by themselves. A parent's job is to do what is best for the children. If you believe that __________ religion is the way to salvation any parent worth his or her salt will do everything in their power to make sure the people they love the most follow down the same path. Nothing could be more right, whether you believe in what they believe or not.

[TubaRay]

Preach on, Doc! I'm right with you.

[windshieldbug]

I saw 20/20 last night high-lighting the new trend of teen girls getting breast implants paid for by their parents

Well, at the VERY least society owes 'em, and the federal government, not the family should at least be footing the bill. And speaking of the bill, can't they sue their parents for not providing the required DNA? What IS this country coming to?

[MaryAnn]

There is starting to be ample evidence that heterosexuality and homosexuality, and the orientations in the middle, are determined by the mix of hormones while the child is in the womb. That would seem to be beyond personal choice as it is usually defined.

This evidence is sketchy at best.

I think that some people are genetically more inclined to become alcoholics than others. The Bible also talks about alcoholism and the problems it can cause a person.

So, is being an alcoholic no longer a sin?

We will have to agree to disagree on topics like this; I for one do not believe in "sin" at all, and have a completely different view from the usual religious ones, on "who" we are and why we are here. (I do believe in Karmic payback if you remove choice from another person on the level as to cause a change in their life direction.) So best left alone, except that I agree to disagree. And to not hate you or discriminate against you, or even say you're wrong. You're completely correct in being who you are.

MA

[MaryAnn]

And Joe, calling someone else sinful, no matter how much you love them, is still not quite right.

Sure it is...100% right. There is no one I know of who does no wrong. (sin = wrongful behavior)

Bloke, the reason I object to the word "sin" is because it is a religion-based word. As in, "my relgious book says you are sinning, therefore it is bad." If you define it as "behavior that is hurtful" then I won't have a problem with it. Then we can get into discussions of which behaviors are harmful / hurtful....for example, I think people who have more than two kids (replacing themselves) are engaging in behavior that is harmful to the planet, because of the rescources that will be used up. So in my book, more than two kids is "sinful." Most people would heartily object to my calling them "sinful" for having 3+ kids, just as I object to their calling someone sinful for being homosexual. My religous book says having 3+ kids is sinful; their religious book says homosexuality is sinful. So it becomes a "my book has better truth than your book" discussion, which is silly but is causing and has caused immeasureable loss of life / freedom in the world.

MA

[Daryl Fletcher]

...

[Rick Denney]

(responding to Joe)
You know, Joe, there has to have been "something" that occurred in the generation between ours and the one now coming up

My father thinks the problem started with the so-called Greatest Generation, that fought WWII. He was just behind that generation, graduating from high school just as the war ended. He went to college with them, and not having done duty in battle gave him a bit of perspective (he had his turn during Korea, where he was a covert radio listener for the Army Security Agency). It is his contention that returning WWII vets were so disillusioned about life that they decided to think only of themselves from then on. This was quite a departure from their parents, who had been the responsible adults during the Great Depression, and who had developed survival skills based on everyone in the family pulling their weight. Much of what I have read that was written by WWII veterans have reinforced the notion that they lost their ideals during the war, seeking only to live another minute longer from one minute to the next. That's not to say they were not heroic, but being heroic had its price.

The prosperity of the 50's made this selfish approach possible, really for the first time. Materialism ran rampant, and that's when parents first started ignoring their kids. But it was conformist selfishness. This is quite consistent with the military outlook particularly for folks in the military not of their own choosing: Do what you are told, never volunteer, don't cause trouble for your platoon mates, and the system will take care of you.

Those of our generation (I mean, yours, mine, Joe's--barely--, Chuck's, Bloke's, and so on) in some cases learned responsibility and in some cases rebelled against it. Those a little older than me who went to Vietnam lost the remaining faith in the system to take care of us even if they did follow the rules. We rebelled against the conformism of that 50's materialism, but have as a generation settled in on a worse materialism, one that seeks personal peace and affluence. Note that by "materialism" I do not mean having wealth, I mean wealth having us. The big starter castles I see in our area being bought by people my age and younger have master suites with their own kitchenettes, living rooms, fireplaces, and bedrooms, clearly to make it possible for the parents to live their lives entirely secluded from the noisy children. Not only does everyone waste their time with TV, they waste their time separately.

It was our generation that first showed disdain for property rights. My mother used to complain that my friends thought nothing of putting wet glasses down on fine furniture. Such details of respect for the property of others that my mother had learned as a matter of common politeness were being lost.

And I have many friends my age and a bit younger who were never really expected to become adults. Many are still living in the shadow of their parents, having never been taught to make their own way. Those of us of our generation who did so are more an exception than we might think.

The following generation (Generation X), now in their 20's, learned materialism from masters. They have taken it to the next step: Instead of wanting everything for themselves, they want everything that is everyone else's for themselves, and have come to think they are entitled to it. Personal pleasure, the logical extension of the personal peace and affluence of our generation, which was the logical extension of working the system by following orders of our parents, has become more important than being responsible for one's actions. Everything gets measured by how it affects feelings of pleasure, instead of being measured by duty and moral rectitude and responsibility. Their kids have turned into animals because they just don't know how to be parents--our generation as a whole has done a lousy job of providing examples.

We have friends whose teen children are doing drugs and sleeping around--at age 14. My wife told an old friend of hers that he would be raising children again soon. His daughter's children. He was shocked that she would say such a thing, but he is doing NOTHING to prevent it in his efforts to be the "cool dad". Yet he complains that his 14-year-old wild child daughter is writing notes to friends about having sex and he is finding pot in the bedroom, often stolen from his stash.

It's striking to remember that "Why Johnny Can't Read" was written in the middle 50's. The combination of the Depression and WWII has really had an effect. For all the complaining baby boomers have done about their parents, all we really did as a generation was take their wrong turn and accelerate down that path.

Rick "who blames his parents for everything, heh, heh" Denney

[windshieldbug]

Rick "who blames his parents for everything, heh, heh" Denney

Gee Rick, we all blame your parents for everything, too!

[TubaRay]

Rick "who blames his parents for everything, heh, heh" Denney

Gee Rick, we all blame your parents for everything, too!

LOL

[MaryAnn]

It's interesting but when I was a couple decades younger I blamed my parents for everything too, but eventually the independence that was inborn kicked in. Since both my parents were Army volunteers during WWII, I think maybe I had a little different family culture than many when I was growing up.

I had many advantages that neither of my parents had...music lessons for one, that I was not suitably grateful for then but am now. Attention to nutrition (we were not allowed candy or junk food;) girl scout camp in the summer; stuff like that, although we didn't do things "rich" people did like go skiing, and we didn't have a boat.

The other fabulous lesson I got growing up was learning to manage money via the existence of an allowance. Not pay for work, but a steady small sum of money that I had to buy things I wanted out of. Not the essentials like food and clothing, but the perks. If I wanted a new baseball mitt (tomboy, of course) ... I had to save up for it. In high school I really wanted a tape recorder, and I saved up for that. That lesson of saving before buying has stuck with me and I find myself in much better financial shape than much of my generation, although I own a lot less stuff. I could buy half the world on time, it seems, but I can't see paying 12% interest over three years for something that is worn out by the time I've paid two or three times what it cost in the first place.

MA, still saving up for that new tuba

[Rick Denney]

Rick- even a casual review of literature from Attic Greece on up reveals that middle aged folks consistently feel that standards are dropping in youth and society is in the dumpster headed for the mullplatz. There are problems with youth but buddy- it ain't exactly time to fold the flag just yet.

I've reviewed literature more than casually, and I recognize that it is common for older folks to think younger folks are screwing up.

Here's an important point for younger folks to consider: The older folks are usually right.

Those older folks are bitching because they've seen how their own mistakes have cost them dearly, and they've had to work extra hard to make up for it. The younger folks should realize that the world they want--where the only pain they feel is self-induced--comes a price they may not be willing to pay when they are older. That's part of growing up.

Any review of literature will reveal that every generation has felt the desire to correct the mistakes of those that went before, and the first step to forging that new path was leaving home. I haven't seen any real desire on the part of those in their 20's and younger to ever leave home. That, to me, is a sea change. I'm sure it's happened before and it will happen again. The question is how bad will the consequences get before people see value in self-reliance again? The Great Depression was the antidote to the Roaring Twenties. Do we want to pay that high a price? I fear we've already decided.

Rick "who can't disagree with the notion that every fourth generation brings disaster on itself" Denney

Edit: I should have added above that I was casting more blame to the upstream generations than to the downstream generations, with my own generation getting the bulk of it. I'm not blaming our kids for following in our footsteps, though they will soon have to choose whether they follow or lead. So far, they seem to be choosing to follow, with only symbolic rebellion. It's hard to be a rebel when still being supported fully by one's parents.

[Tubaryan12]

The combination of ever increasing availability of manpower both skilled and unskilled (graduate enough college students and there's no reason to pay them much- especially when you can hire overseas talent far cheaper) means wages drop.

And this would happen even withouth the influence of overseas labor. These few things have happened in my short 41 yrs on the earth:

1. Operators no longer switch calls, place calls, or in most cases, even read the number after they find it for you.
2. We no longer pump our own gas (except for a few lucky places in the US).
3. ATM's
4. Self check outs at the supermarket (not to mention bag your own places).
5. Robots do a lot of the work in manufacturing.
6. Desktop computers have the power to do the jobs of several people at once.

Just from this short list (and I'm sure there are a lot more examples) it is easy to see that a lot of jobs are removed from the work force even as the population goes up. Add in foreign labor and the picture is even more bleak.

The only thing we really make in this country anymore is money.

And each day it takes less and less of us to do it.

[MaryAnn]

Ok, DUH here. Who is Steve Campbell?
MA, who obviously is insufficiently educated

[Tabor]

There are so many problems that endanger not only the education of children but the very LIVES of everyone around them that could have been solved earlier if spanking was still legal in schools. (and they wouldn't even get to the schools if the parents used this technique)

For example, a while back there was a first grader hauled away in handcuffs because he or she pulled a knife and threatened teachers and students. There was another, slightly older kid who was tazered by police because he wouldn't drop a weapon. The media always sensationalizes the schools as being hysterical and stupid, but the problem is that the only appropriate soloution has been taken away.

The appropriate thing in these cases with a child of these ages is a good hard spanking in front of their peers, but that option was taken away. Now, although it seems silly or stupid, schools are left with few options. Sometimes, the police are called in and respond according to what their police training dictates.