Child Rearing Practices

[Joe Baker]

I have real issues with religion being combined with parenting.. i come from a small country town and i am also a homosexual. Too many times did i see kids use religion as their reason to hate me in my younger years because of either the limited grasps they had of the concepts within the bible or the endorsement to hate through there parents/teachers through their perceptions of the bible. I think kids should find there own way. But i do think its valid in some areas. i went to a private catholic school with a HUGE ethos on self developement which i believe was beneficial to my years there. It had basis in the bible but it wasnt directing us towards the bible for the reason to be grow and develop into better people. It lead us towards each other as community. The persistence for excellence was always treated as a benefit to the greater community. pretty utopianesk verging on communistic ideals (heaven forbid lol). But my yr level had the lowest drop outs in our final year (in australia the final year of VCE is basically the only one assesed that accords u entrance to universities thusly very stressful) and now has one of the highest acceptance and continuing university degrees since the early 90's..

This is another of those areas where a lot has been lost because parents don't spend T-I-M-E developing their children's understanding of the world. When you have to get it all in a hurry, a lot of nuance -- which can be VERY important -- gets lost.

With specific regard to the Bible's teaching about homosexuality, given the polarized language that is prevalant in our society today, I've spent a lot of time explaining to my kids that, while we as Christians believe homosexual ACTS are contrary to scripture, the Bible gives US a very clear instruction: love your neighbor. There's no escape clause if your neighbor sins, because all the neighbors sin, as do we ourselves. Each of us is responsible for evaluating the truth of the scriptures and applying it to our own lives, not trying to find where other people have transgressed. It takes time to get that message across, especially when the two prevailing messages -- which I've not found to really represent the INDIVIDUAL Christians OR gay people I've known -- are either 'anti-homosexual' or 'anti-Christian'.

On behalf of a great many Christians, I'd like to let you know that I would never support hatred of ANYONE for being gay, and I'm so sorry that someone acting in the name of Jesus did that. Jesus was patient with everyone he ever encountered who was found in sexual sin; but he had nothing but scorn for religious leaders who put the letter of the law ahead of compassion. People who hate others have no right to call themselves by His name.
___________________________________
Joe Baker, who knows a fair number of gay people who are just as embarrassed by the 'ACT UP' crowd.

[Mark]

When I was in high school, if a kid talked back to a teacher, the assistant principal would come to the class room, physically drag the kid out in the hall, pin him to the wall and "explain" that the kid was not going to do that again. Then, when dad got home from work, dad would give the kid that same "explanation" again. Back then, the main job requirement for assistant principals was that they should be bigger and tougher than any of the students.

Now, if the teacher even talks harshly to a student, the student's single mother will call a lawyer and sue everyone in sight. Today, the main job requirement for assistant principal is that they have succesfully undergone sensitivity and diversity "training".

[MaryAnn]

Bloke, basically I agree with you, but can't find anywhere I like to put my measly little pin-sized vote.

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

[Daryl Fletcher]

[Daryl Fletcher]

...

[ThomasDodd]

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?

Is that church dogma or the actual founding principles of the religon? There's a lot of dogma with little in the written texts to support it.

Still you love the sinner while disapproving of the sin. Related to the followon, there are claims of sexual addiction abnd other mental dissorder theat lead to rape, incest, and adultry. If those behaviors are out of ones control, should they therefore not be sins?

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.

And there is ample evidence to the contrary. who do you believe/trust?

Case in point. Depression is a disease caused by a chemical imbalance? What causes the imbalance though. There is evidence that though patterns can alter the chemical balance just as the chemicals alter though processes. So looking at depressing images or thinking about sad things can cause the same imbalance as seen in climical depression. Why do most people return to the previous state, but not all? Perhaps the current meds are treting a sympton (the chemical balance) and not the cause?

What is homsexuality is is similary the symptom of some other problem? We aren't likely to find out, since it not P.C. to research it. Current work assumes it's not a problem, and attempts to verify that assumption. You tend to find what you're looking for.

I don't know what the case is.

[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!