Last edited by Cinderella82; 10-08-2013 at 21:10.
Last edited by Cinderella82; 10-08-2013 at 21:09.
Sure, discuss the various religious faiths in a general studies subject - religion is a powerful force in the world and warrants discussion, but to teach a specific religion as fact, to young (impressionable) children is unacceptable in my book.
Last edited by Cinderella82; 10-08-2013 at 21:08.
One can respect the believer without respecting their beliefs. Christopher Hitchens was a great exemplar of this, having been good friends with a number of prominent Christians yet excoriating their primitive superstitions in no uncertain terms.
Referring to another's beliefs as 'Mumbo Jumbo' is no better than a Christian referring to your beliefs as 'Heathen Arrogance'.
Just wanted to make one other small point- you said you don't believe raising children within a religion is indoctrination. The bible is considered to be doctrine, and if you teach this to a child as fact, ie- to accept it without criticism, then by definition, you are actually indoctrinating them. If you are saying instead "this is what I believe, this is what others believe, what do you think? Can you see it from another perspective? " then you are teaching them to make their own decisions about it, and not indoctrinating. Then comes the whole debate about what age people are considered mature enough to understand and decide etc etc etc
... and I'm not offended by you using the term, but it has made me think less of you, as I would think less of someone who was so condescending about anyone elses religious beliefs.
So that's something to consider when you do 'express your views'.
The free dictionary gives the following definition:
mum·bo jum·bo or mum·bo-jum·bo (mmb-jmb)n. pl. mum·bo jum·bos or mum·bo-jum·bos 1. Unintelligible or incomprehensible language; gibberish.
2. Language or ritualistic activity intended to confuse.
3. A complicated or obscure ritual.
4. An object believed to have supernatural powers; a fetish.
Using any of these definitions there is a strong argument that each could be applied to someone believing Christianity (or any other religion) is mumbo jumbo. (The only exception might be the first one if we only use the example of language and the fourth one regarding fetishes.)
1. Major religions, their holy books and tenets are full of inconsistencies, hypocrisies and flawed logic.
2. To be honest I"m unfamiliar with many religious rituals. Perhaps the Christian belief of turning wine and wafers literally into blood and flesh is an example?
3. Christianity/Judaism an Islam most definitely have complicated rituals!
4. Deities are supposed to have supernatural powers.
I'm not saying this to be argumentative. I am posting this to break down what someone is saying to prove that there is validity in the statement. I get that no all will agree with me and I'm not bothered by that - my point is that if you deconstruct the statement it is based on fact - why are people so offended by facts? To be really blunt I don't care if someone's offended by my atheistic beliefs/posts/stance - that's their problem. I'm not attacking or belittling anyone - merely pointing out facts.
Again using the free dictionary
Heathen is defined as:
1. Offensive a. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
b. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
Yup, I'd agree with those statements but I'm not offended because it's true regardless if it is supposed to be offensive.
Arrogance is defined as:
ar·ro·gance (r-gns)n. The state or quality of being arrogant; overbearing pride.
Errr, nope. How does stating facts in a relevant discussion make me arrogant?
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!