From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: First birthday party ideas?
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:32:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

> 
>	Ah, so they've redefined the term.  

Yes, and no.  Same meaning, different technicalities.

> 
>	I get confused when people use words to mean new things.  
>As far as I understood, the godparents are responsible for making 
>sure the child has a proper religious education.  I couldn't undestand 
>why a non-religious parent would want their child to have
>someone interested in their child`s non-existant religious
>education.  

IMO being religious means belonging to a formal religious 
organization, which has an intermediary (priest, minister, rabbi) 
who administers whatever from god.  I am not religious.  However, 
I am very SPIRITUAL, and spend a significant amount of time on
spiritual development.  I just don't use the intermediary and 
formal organization, since I prefer gnosis - direct experience of 
god - mysticism if you like.  Although my husband is atheist, he 
is spiritual in a human-spirit  (not god-spirit) way.

>	I think sponsor or mentor is more the term
>these folks may be looking for.  

Hmmmm...  I prefer the term godparent actually, though my husband 
would probably prefer  "mentor" since its more secular.  
Fortunately, neither of us is greatly concerned with 
technicalities.  "Godparents" that my husband and I choose would be 
charged with helping the child develop spiritually (though not religiously), 

We would want the child to be nourished spiritually - taught 
commonly accepted moral code, exposed to different spiritual 
concepts.  But in the end, whatever ideas or beliefs he chooses 
are entirely his decision.  I distinctly do not want to impose my 
beliefs on the child.  Don't want the godparents to impose 
beliefs either.  (Exposing the child to spiritual ideas and 
beliefs is fine.)  Eventually, if he finds meaning in a formal religion,
even a conservative one, fine with me.  

>I'd also think it *much*
>more difficult to find a suitable individual.  With no
>"organized religion" how do you know the sponsor will
>subscribe to the beliefs (or lack there of as appropriate)
>which they wish their child to develop?  

First of all, there's lots of "us" out there.  We're just not 
organized.:)  I know plenty of people who approach spirituality 
in a similar way - though they may hold different beliefs than I.
To answer the 2nd part of your question, I'm not that concerned 
about godparents subscribing to particular beliefs.  The 
important thing to me is that they support our approach and will 
not impose their beliefs on our child.

>I guess you'ld 
>not only have to know that person *very* well, but trust 
>your life philosophies would evolve similarly.  Nice concept 
>though -- I think a non-related adult who is interested in a 
>child's growth and development a gennerally good idea.

Obviously, we would want someone supportive of our general 
approach, but there are no prerequisite beliefs of any sort.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I do not feel this approach is 
*better* than a more formal approach.  Interest in the child and 
good intentions for his or her welfare are the important 
elements.  They all have to find their own way eventually.

>Elise.

- Peggy -