From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: God's Family Values in misc.kids
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:20:57 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <17ftr2INN1dq@iraul1.ira.uka.de> stoesser@i31s22.ira.uka.de (Achim Stoesser) writes:
>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.

I cannot attest to all groups mentioned here, but I do know that the problem
in Northern Ireland is not because one group is Catholic and the other
Protestant.  It is because one group is British (and they happen to be
protestant) who came over to Ireland (where they were Catholic) and subsequently
suppressed the natives (not unlike the Europeans suppressed the American 
Indians).  It is not religion that is at issue, but self government.  The IRA 
wants the British out of northern Ireland.  They don't give a hoot about 
converting them to Catholocism.  If a Brit were to convert, they'd still want 
him gone.

The same situation is happening in Yugoslavia.  The Serbians want "ethnic
purity" not "religious purity".  If a Muslim were to convert to Christianity,
the fact that the Muslim is not a Serb means he would still be driven out
or imprisoned.  

The set unity I see is not theism, but human baseness.  It is not the desire
for one religion to take over the world, but for one set of people to have
superiority over another set.  I believe that if the entire world were
atheists we would still have the same list.  There would be people who shun
current medical practice, only instead of for religious reasons they'd call
themselves "homeopaths" or some other group.  There would be countries who
invade other countries.  Only instead of Jihad, it would be for their ports
or oil or land.

I do not accept your premise that the evil in the world is created by theism.
I do agree that great evil has been done in the guise of religion and that
religion has been twisted and abused and debased for man's own greedy purposes.
But to indict religion because of "jihad" is, to me, the same as banning knives
because people use them to stab one another.  It is not the religion or the
knife that is at fault.  It is the people misusing them.

>So, do you teach your children what could be wrong with what you think? Do
>you teach them what others think? 

I think this is the most cogent point you have brought up in all this 
discussion.  Here we agree 100%.  The question, however, becomes at what age
do we teach our children that others think differently.  I tend to believe
that first we must teach how we think.  Then how others think.  By age 12
children should be aware that the world is not defined exactly as Mom and Dad
said it was.  

My sister is an active Christian Scientist.  This is a conversation between
her and her 12 YO son.

Son:	But Mom, what if I'm not a Christian Scientist.
Mom:	Do you love me BECAUSE I'm a Christian Scientist?
Son:	No.
Mom:	Do you love me BECAUSE I'm a writer.
Son:	No.
Mom:	Do you love me BECAUSE I have brown hair, wear a size 12 or any other
	superficial reason.
Son:	No, I love you because you're Mom.  You take care of me and love me.
Mom:	And I will love you because you are my son and a wonderful, kind,
	person with a great sense of humor.  Your dad and I chose Christian
	Science because it is the best answer we found in this world.  But
	you will have to find your own answer and make your own choices.  We
	will not stop loving you because you find a different answer or make
	a different choice from us.

I only hope I handle my pre-teen with as much understanding and wisdom.
-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake