h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree with you, Egon. My parents were both raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools. They were told that it was the right way to think. In their religion classes, they didn't really study what the Bible said, they were just told what the Catholic take on it was. With this in mind, my parents did not have me baptised, christened, or whatever and told me to choose my own path. While I'm pretty much non-religious, it was my choice to be that way. I could've asked my parents to take me to church, but I never felt the need for it. You can teach values with out teaching religion, and I think that's something many people fail to realize or perhaps accept. I was taught to treat others equally. I knew how to respect others and their opinions, but I've never been afraid to state my opinions and stand beside them. My parents raised me to be a free-thinker, and I personally believe that religion would have inhibited that. Just my take on things.

Alot of people on H2G2 would agree, because it's free thinking that getts people to read HHGTTG in the first place.

-- DocotorMO --

Lynne- would you agree with me if I were to say that the moral values of a non-religious person can be more rational than those of a heavily religious person?

It's just that my moral values and my sense of right and wrong is based largely on the effect my actions have on others, and on consideration, while the views of particularly strongly religious people can be based more on religious teachings and what God will smite you down for.

I always thought I'd be the coolest dad. I figured that I would raise my kids to be free thinkers and let them be who and what they would be. I wouldn't do the established religion thing - since it was all a sham anyway. I would let them get earrings whenever they wanted. I'd let them have long hair if they wanted, hold roman candles in their hands on the fourth of July, and definitely not make them weed the garden!

Then, an amazing thing happened; I had a kid. After he was born I changed. Oh, not all at once, it wasn’t like one day I was Mr. Liberal and suddenly I was Captain Conservative. But gradually, almost imperceptibly, my values started to change. I started to realize, that I had to do what was best by the child.

I realized that holding roman candles in your hand on the fourth of July is a darned dangerous thing to do and could cause serious injury to this kid that I cannot bear to see in pain. I realized that I alone could not give this child the moral guidance and answer all the questions myself. I would need help, I would need a community of people who share the same basic beliefs that I do, and I found that in a church.

My kids now spend about an hour each evening weeding our vegetable garden with me. It’s good work and they will benefit from the work with the great fresh vegetables they will get to eat when we harvest them. Plus, it wears them out and makes it easier to get them to bed.

I would consider my kids to be extremely free thinkers. They are great artists and have a great deal of imagination. They do not hesitate to question why things are, and why they have to do what they have to do. I don’t think that following an established religion curtails freethinking. My firm belief is that parents, not schools, churches, community centers, boy scouts or even peers, have more to do with a person’s freethinkability (hey! I made up a word) than anything else.

Of course, we are lucky in a way. My wife was in a near fatal auto accident in the late 80’s and is permanently disabled, which means she cannot work. So we get to raise our own kids and not have a day-care raise them for us.

The point I’m getting at here is this; It is very easy to know the best way to raise a kid, until you have one.

So experience is the key? How do you tell if what your doing is protective or suppressive, a dangerous line to cross because most people revolt under suppressive systems.

btw, One of the advantages of being a freethinker is that you get to try and understand someone else’s point of view, which in a way leads you to a kind of third party experience, not as good as the real thing, but possibly beneficial to the way you react if your ever in that situation.

-- DoctorMO --

Experience, of course, is the best educator.

What I was trying to get across is one can easily declare what one would do in any given situation, but when actually faced with that situation, the action taken is not necessarily what one envisioned.

Eep! I didn't mean letting your children run wild! If it came off wrong, I apologize. I mean, obviously, there are certain things that you would never let your kids do (namely dangerous/stupid things). Granted, my parents did not raise me perfectly. However, I think that a child can be raised without the community (church or otherwise). My mom quit working while I was young, and she only went back when I was 8 or 9. I just think there are other ways. I think a lot of it comes down to the way our society is. While women have gained more footing in the business world, they are still expected to work, have/raise the children, cook, clean, etc. In some families, the duties are shared, but they aren't shared in enough families to make having children and a career easy. You either neglect your job or your family, and while daycare isn't the best option by any strech of the imagination, it's hard to make the decision to give up a good career that would help you provide for the children.

Egon in my experience, yes. Personally, I find myself judging my actions on how they affect other people. I think the really, heavily religious people (not just your average person) tend to base too much on their religion. Kind of "how does this apply to/affect my beliefs" as opposed to "how does this apply to/affect the people around me".

On another, not necessarily related topic, Bush has proposed this new welfare idea. He wants single mothers that are on welfare to get married. They would take marriage classes to learn to communicate with their partner, etc. Can you imagine the problems and potential dangers involved with this? Ending up married to an abuser comes to mind... If only the gov't would somehow find good, affordable daycare or something for these mothers so they could get jobs and get off welfare.

wait... the land of the free? is forcing people into binding contracts. dosn't sound too free to me.

From Above: You still didn't anwser my question, how can you tell if you step over the line?

-- DoctorMO --

There was a story in the Daily Telegraph yesterday about a US pastor and his brother who severley beat a teenager who cheated at bible studies. The boy is now in hospital with kidney failure.

That's the understanding, moral, christian church for you.

Lynn:
What I was trying to do, rather unsuccessfully I believe, was to illustrate that I had this ideal of what a great and cool dad was. But when push came to shove, I found that ideal was lacking.

Yes, our society today is not child centric – so to speak. People have that “I want it and I want it now” attitude. While this attitude can inspire people to produce great things, more often than not it causes both parents to work 50-60 hour workweeks leaving their children to be raised by others (day-care, nannies etc). The studies I have seen, and I admit I have not seen many, show that children raised in two parent household, in general, get into less trouble than those not, even more so when one of the parents stay home to raise the kids. Having said that, I don’t agree with the government telling people they should get married. In fact, I don’t believe in the government getting involved in peoples’ personal lives.

From Earlier: I still stand by my statement that we raise our kids to believe as we believe. Your parents not raising you in the Catholic Church is a prime example of this. While they were raised in the Church, they chose not to follow that path. There were, it seems, things in the Church in which they did not believe. So, their belief system was that the Church did not hold all the answers and that children should find those answers on their own. We may or may not be successful in this endeavor.

DoctorMO:
Can you please elaborate on what you’re talking about with the binding contracts? I am feeling extremely ignorant in this matter.

Pretty much, you have to go on your gut feeling as to where that line is. Being too suppressive will inspire the children to rebel in their teen years and to shed the value system you spent 13+ years trying to build. Being too protective will ensure the children are not prepared for the harsh realities of the “real world.” There is a balance. Where does that balance lie? That, I believe is subjective and depends on several factors. Location, the child in question and the parent are all part of those factors.

When we lived in Alaska, I didn’t have to worry about kids leaving their bikes sitting in the yard, I knew they would not be taken. I also didn’t have to worry about the kids going across the street to the park by themselves to play. Even though they were young, the environment in which we lived was not conducive to crimes against children.

However, when we moved back to the “lower 48” we had to tell the kids about crime, and warn them to be very cautious, always put their bikes in the garage. Always lock the garage. Never go to the park or ride their bikes around the block alone, always in numbers. These rules had to be set for their safety and the protection of their belongings. If they disobey these rules, punishment is mandatory. While these rules are much more suppressive here than they were in Alaska, they are necessary rules. They had to learn that all people are not nice, that some people, who may seem nice, are very bad people.

As to how can I tell if I step over the line? I don’t think I will really know until I see how they turn out. Ask me that in about 10 years, when my first one is out of school, and I’ll let you know.


Egon:
I would have to ask you how non-religious the person is? Is this person as aggressive about their non-religiousness as the heavily religious person is about their religion? If that were the case, then no, I couldn’t agree with you. However, if you are comparing a middle-of-the-road person to a zealot, then you are comparing apples to oranges. I would have to add that it depends on how your ‘strongly religious’ person was taught. I know very strongly religious people (Christians, Jews, Buddhists) who are more concerned with doing the right thing than with what God will smite them for. As far as Christianity is concerned, there are many, many different sects. Some of them I agree with their teachings, others I would strongly disagree with their teachings.


All:
On a wholly unrelated matter – This is so much fun, and very educational! Thanks for being good people and asking pointed questions. This is the first thread I’ve participated in on H2G2. Most other forums I have read would have degraded into mean spirited name-calling flames by now. It is so refreshing to be able to participate in open discussions with people who don’t lash out emotionally. And, I apologize for sometimes not explaining myself as well as I could. You all are helping be to be able to do that!

whenI say a binding contract, I mean the marage, because in the US and in the UK (as far as I'm aware) marage intails some laws. not good to put these people into a situation were they are subject to these laws, and even worse to infringe on there personal choice.

Thank you for you anwser, I will have to search for somthing more relaiable if I ever invested into a family, *weary look*

Most People on H2G2 have read HHGTTG and so most have that comic outlook on liife wereby the earth explodes in some form or another.

-- DoctorMO --

No, Egon, that is not the “understanding, moral, Christian church” that is a couple of people who committed a horribly heinous crime. I cannot, and will not associate the Christian church as a whole on the actions of a few people, anymore that I will associate the Muslim faith on the actions of Osama and his followers.

After all, that “American Taliban” kid’s parents tried to raise him as a “freethinker”. Does that mean all people who claim to be freethinkers will do what he did? No, I don’t think so. I like to think of myself as a freethinker, and I’d not do that.

There are people that belong to all faiths that do bad things, terrible things. The Inquisition is brought to mind. The Mayans and Druids did the human sacrifice thing. Millions of people have been killed in the name of this or that religion. I don’t know of any Christian church that says, “Yeah, Jim Jones in Guyana did the right thing,” or “those priests who molested those kids were right to do so.”

I try not to make broad generalizations about a group of people, based on the actions of a small percentage of those people. Doesn’t matter if that group is based on religion, race, color, national origin or what have you.

DoctorMO: I don’t, for a minute, believe that marriage for welfare moms proposal will get anywhere, so while I watch what is going on, I don’t get too riled up about it. It’s just a dumb idea any way you slice it.

caineMutiny- I refer to non-religious people, rather than aggressively anti-religious. I believe that many religions actually preach intolerance

And also, that was the action of a person in a position of authority, as were the actions of the catholic priests who abused children and had it covered up by the church. My opposition is not to people's religious beliefs, but to the hypocrisy of religious organisations.

Yes, many do preach intolerance. I can't tell you how many times I've been told I'm going to hell because I don't believe a certain way. And yes, the actions of the priests were covered up by their superiors. But I maintain that is a small percentage of Catholic priests/bishops that performed/allowed these attrocities.

I haven't seen any reports of abuse of this sort in Europe, or Africa, or South America, or Canada or anywhere else. I believe this is a uniquely American problem. It will take years, perhaps decades for the American church to recover from this. But most Catholics I have spoken with are able to seperate the actions of the indiviuals from the Church as a spiritual community.

The other day a video tape was released of police officers in Englewood, California beating a handcuffed teenager. These were people in authority. But I don't maintain that all police officers, or all police agencies are corrupt or inherantly bad.

If you compare middle of the road ideologies with extremist ideologies, of course the extremists will lose out on the moral and tolerance issues. That is, as previously stated, comparing apples to oranges.

Hypocrasy is not limited to religious organizations. And not all religious organizations are hypocritical. One must remember that these organizations are run by people, who in nature are fallible. Sometimes these people put what they percieve as the good of the organization above the good of the community, which is wrong regardless of what type of organization we are talking about.

NOTE: I don't consider any private industry or company as an organization as we are talking about here. Private companies are created for the sole reason to make money. This precludes any good to the community which may or may not come about by their actions. In other words, it's not Coca-Cola's responsibility to feed the poor.

I think the point is that Religion in it's self is hyporcritical, because it it wasn't it would have died out long ago with the making of science. But linger on it does.

-- DoctorMO --

So, what I understand you to be saying is that religion and science are not able to co-exist?

We had science since the beginning of time, only it wasn't called science. A scientist created the first boat (had a theory, tested the theory, published his findings). Science has been instrumental in medicinal treatments, even before we could synthesize medicines. Science help us creat the first weapons. And what rocks to strike together to make fire. A scientist created the wheel! And that all happened before any reference I have seen of organized religion.

No, I don't believe the discovery of science should obliterate all religion. There are still too many things that science can't give us reasonable answers for. And when there are no answers to important questions, we will turn elsewhere for the answers. Most of us will turn to religion. It's worked for over 10,000 years.

Your realy stupid, I never thought I'd say that in H2G2, but I can't belive you think the discuvery of the weel and others are to do with science, It means that you don't even understand what science is. granted you know what technological advancment is. but science is about thoughs questions that havn't been ansered and the fact that every anwser has to be proven, it's not like discuvering that round things move bette than square things if you only know it because it's practical.

-- DoctorMO --

Go to http://www.dictionary.com and lookup the definitions for both 'science' and 'technology'. You may find I am not as stupid as you think I am.

Seems the forums here on H2G2 aren't so different from others I have read. What started as a lively and interesting discussion, has degraded to personal attacks and name calling (and just the day after I marveled at everyone's ability to conduct a discussion without such immature antics). That said, I'm done with this thread.

Goodbye.

Shame on you, DoctorMO. You've been around h2g2 long enough to know that we don't go in for personal abuse around these parts. Anyway, if anyone's left looking stupid by your posting, it's you. caineMutiny is quite right to say that the invention of the boat and the wheel could be described as 'science'. Take a look here: http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=science , and I think you'll agree.
'Knowledge, especially that gained through experience' certainly covers it, I'd say.

I also totally take on board cM's point about how you can't really know what sort of parent you'd be until you are one. I see my friends who have kids, and I can't say that I envy them. Of course they assure me that parenthood is wonderful and fulfilling, but they still often look pretty stressed-out and exhausted to me. Anyone who gets through parenthood with their sanity largely intact has my sincere admiration.

However, cM, I'm sorry to say that you were being over-optimistic in thinking that the Catholic paedophile priest scandal was confined to America. Far from it, I fear. There have been lots of similar cases in Europe. See here for the sad truth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_840000/840742.stm

Lynne, I feel that I owe you an apology. When I read your first posting about that Bush policy of pushing single mothers towards marriage, I didn't believe it. I thought you might be joking, because it sounded like something one of my favourite satire sites might make up. I didn't think that even Bush would be quite that crass and clumsy, but having looked it up on CNN, I see that I was wrong.

What a truly frightening idea - George W. the matchmaker! 'Don't let your life be limitated by lonelyosity. Come to Dubya's matrimoniality agency'! No thank you!