From: stoesser@i31s22.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: God's Family Values in misc.kids
Date: 26 Aug 1992 12:35:46 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i31s22.ira.uka.de

In article <bandor.714703111@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au>, bandor@byerley.rdt.monash.edu.au (Tony McGregor) writes:
|> Achim Stoesser writes:
|> 
|> >One reason why I am an atheist is that harm is done to children by
|> >theism.  If Christians in Northern Ireland want to bomb each other,
|> >Jehovah's Witnesses don't want blood transfusions, and all theists
|> >don't face reality it's their problem. But they force their children
|> >to do the same, and this is the point I oppose.
|> 
|> I think you are branding all theists with the same brush here. Your
|> argument is the same as one that says "The New Zealand Maoris ate
|> one another before white people liberated them so I'll have nothing to
|> do with the culture of black people, It's bad."

Yes, this were true _if_ cannibalism would have anything to do with the color
of the skin, which it doesn't. The examples I mentioned clearly have to do and
are caused by theism. 
 
|> I, and every one of the Christians I know, have never suggested that
|> my children should refuse life saving medication. I oppose violence.

That's fine. My problem is that always when I point to the faults of theist
T1 (member of sect S1) theist T2 pops up and says, "I'm member of S2, we 
don't do this." Maybe only some millions are Jehovah's Witnesses, some millions
are Christians in Northern Ireland, some millions are in what used to be
Yugoslavia, some millions want Rushdie's death, some millions ... etc., but
you have to see the set unity.

If I'm upset by religious "education" and blasphemy laws in Germany you might
say, "Well, not here in Australia." I must admit that I don't know much
about theism in Australia. But all theists have one thing in common: they
believe in at least one god. And all Christians have one thing in common:
they base their believes on a book they call Bible. And this is really a 
problem. 

|> Please don't label MY ideas "religious nonsense" which you "can't let
|> stay here" because of your serotype of religious belief.

I do not label _your_ ideas anything because I don't know enough about it.
I definitely prefer your point of view (as presented in this post) to, say,
members of Angel's Work who teach their children that Judgement Day will arrive
before 1998. Imagine how these children will feel in 1999. The term "religious
nonsense" referred to, for example, the original post, where a bible-thumper
tried to enlighten anybody by spreading his biblical raisins.

|> >If there were people who think that giving LSD to little kids is a
|> >good idea you probably would do the same (oppose it, I mean).
|> 
|> Yes, of course I would. But I believe I am giving good things to my
|> children. 

Of course you do. And so do many drug addicts.

             I am trying to teach them values that they can build a happy
|> successful life on. Values like caring for other people, not being self
|> centered, respecting the environment, being honest. 

Very good. But _why_ should they do so? Because it is a god's will, because
Jesus or your bible says so? This is a very dangerous attitude.
Or because it make life more enjoyable for all people? Than no theism is
needed. 

And _how_ should they do it? To protect the environment, for
example, you need knowledge, not superstition. 
                                                        As a basis for
|> that I am also trying to teach them what I believe about the world.

I know you are sure that your believe about the world is correct. But what
if not?

If you believe that the stork delivers babies, and therefor don't eat storks,
that's fine for the storks, but it is not a good argument for vegetarianism.
In contrary, if you teach this to your children, they will probably have some
trouble.

To paraphrase Erich Fried (excuse my bad translation):
  If you teach your children to think rightist, you are a rightist. 
  If you teach your children to think leftist, you are a rightist.
  If you teach your children that it doesn't matter what they think,
    you are a rightist.
  If you teach your children not to think at all, you are a rightist.
  But if you teach your children what you think, and what could be wrong 
    with it, you might be a leftist.
(The last word should be anarchist in my opinion, but that's another point.)
So, do you teach your children what could be wrong with what you think? Do
you teach them what others think? As a kid, _I_ was never told that there
are people who don't believe in a god, neither by my parents, nor in school
(nasty murderers, communists etc. excluded.) God was presented as a fact,
not as a believe system without evidence.

|> Please, if you think I'm hurting my children as much as giving them
|> LSD, tell me how. But please don't make vague, generalisations about me.

As I said before, I don't know enough about you and your brand of theism
(and I don't have enough experience with LSD) to specify that. But as a 
believer you can't help but teach your children to believe (instead of
thinking, investigating, sticking to facts).

|> PS
|> 
|> Achim also wrote:
|> 
|> >Several people said that misc.kids is not an appropriate place for
|> >this argument.
|> 
|> I was going to reply to this post by mail because I think that
|> there are more people in misc.kids who don't want to hear this than do
|> but then lots of people aren't interested in breast feeding but that
|> belongs here and this is, ultimately, about children.
|> 
At least one point where we agree.


								  Achim
_______________________________________________________________________

I'm an anarchist, atheist, pacifist, and vegetarian.  Several thousand
years ago our ancestors thought that despotic chieftains, thunder gods,
tribal feuds, and cannibalism were good ideas.  Any similarity with
living persons is merely coincidental.

Newsgroups: misc.kids