Category: Let's talk
For example I don't believe in god. But if I have children later on, and they want to believe in god, I think they should, do what they want, it's their choice. The reason I'm asking is because my grandma forced me to believe in god. Or for example if you are a vegetarian and the children like to eat meat. There are many people who force their children to share their views and believes - what do you think?
I say let them choose. However it can be difficult sometimes for those who have very strong beliefs not to allow them to influence their children. Children see and observe their parents and if the parents believe in a certain way, going to church or sundays or lighting candles on an alter, whatever it is, some kids will naturally emulate it. So there's a difference between forcing and unintentionally giving, but I don't think forcing shit occur, no
Yeah, I totally agree with that.
I think that the way your views/beliefs are imparted on your children is something that should change as that child grows. i.e. when the child is little, if you are a church goer, you will take that child to church with you, send him/her to sunday school, teach him about whatever religion you have chosen to follow, in the hope that that child will grow up sharing the same views/beliefs as you. However, I think you need to do this in the knowledge that that child will one day grow up into an adult with his/her own potential views on things, and that the way he/she thinks about certain things might differ from yours. And that, after all, is what makes everyone individual. It is quite a difficult one to answer however, as some peoples' views differ so much, and also, there are some views that you will enforce on to your children whether they like it or not, such as discipline for instance. Lots of different people have different views on how discipline should be enforced. I might choose to discipline my child one way, and when he gets a bit older, he might not agree with my methods, however, he is a child living in my house, and I will not tolerate bad manners/behavior, and therefore, in that sense, yes, I will enforce my views on to my child, but when he is old enough, he will leave home, and one day might have children of his own, and when he does, it wil be up to him to then decide how he chooses to discipline those children, and it will not be for me to question. hope that makes some sense ..
No we will bring them up to think for themselves but in saying that we will tell them our beliefs and let them extrapolate from there..
What you've said makes perfect since SugarBaby. I don't have children yet, but as my husband and I have been trying for years we've discussed what we hope to do. We too do not believe in God, but if they want to go to church we'll find them a way to go as my mother did for me. We will do our best to raise what is in our eyes good people, but we won't try and make them into the smaller versions of us. It isn't fair to them, and if all people were the same wouldn't it be a boring world? I expect my children to develop their own ways of living, and as long as they're happy and hurting no one...
I believe it is wrong to inflict a religion on children. They should be brought up with the knowledge that no religion has been prooved beyond doubt to be entirely correct and accurate. I've already said in another discussion that I think that at the age of 5 cyhildren and their parents should be assessed. If the assessment concludes that the child has been forced or strongly influenced to follow a religion then its parents should be locked up until it is 18. When the child reaches 18, the parents should be assessed again to establish whether or not they would still raise their children in the way which lead to their arrest if they were to have any more children. What happens to them after that assessment should be determined by the outcome of the assessmen. I wouldn't force my beliefs on my children, they would be brought up though to abide by the law. I wouldn't allow them to follow a religion that hadn't been prooved beyond doubt to be correct and accurate and this would prevent them from pressurising others to convert to whatever religion they otherwise would have chosen.
Well I agree, you should tell them your beliefs and views, let them grow up with them, but if the child grows, maybe if it is in school, you she/he should start to make his/her first own views and beliefs.
What a complete load of bilge, Wainderful wangel! Quite apart from inflicting an unnecessary trauma on a 5-year-old by stripping him of his parents when, after all, he might have been perfectly happy being brought up by going to communion every week at his local Catholic church, or being Joseph in the nativity at his school, you would put people in prison who weren't really criminals, thereby unnecessarily swelling the prison population which is already dogged by overcrowding! And thirteen years? slightly disproportionate, isn't it? Wainderful wangel I am rapidly reaching the conclusion that your sense of the world is warped, to say the least. You give no consideration to the views you advance before you let loose this sinister fascist nonsense that happens to be composed entirely of non sequiturs. And what would you do with the children stripped of their parents? Put them into care? Oh no, that wouldn't do at all, would it, because public local authority care wouldn't have enough room, and private care is often run by charitable organisations who benefit massively from money given to them by churches and other religious foundations! So what's to be done with them? On a slightly different note, and getting back to the topic, it's very easy to say all that has been said so far. It's all perfectly valid, and all quite correct. sugarbaby's views in particular cannot be doubted. However, like I said, contributors thus far have only attempted to answer the easy questions dealing with religion and bad manners, so let me ask you two more: 1. If your child, notwithstanding his upbringing, joined an extremist party like the british National Party, the National Front, the front Nationale in France, the neo-Nazis or the communists, would you disown him? What would your actions be? 2. Should a parent be allowed to have a male child circumcised so as to accord with custom, whether religious or secular? Any thoughts?
LL, The child would be given up for adoption under my proposals. In answer to question 1, if I had my way, the BNP and similar organisations would be outlawed and all their members arrested and not released until they adopted more acceptable views, and sircumsision would be banned as it's an unnecessary practice which wastes health resources.
Oh and something I forgot to say, the prison system wouldn't be over crowded. YOu can probably fit hundreds of people in each cell. I don't think criminals are entitled to any level of privocy or living space.
Oh and something I forgot to say, the prison system wouldn't be over crowded. YOu can probably fit hundreds of people in each cell. I don't think criminals are entitled to any level of privocy or living space.
Wainderful wangel, as to the first question, have you considered that by adopting the policy of arbitrary arrest for political beliefs is the hallmark of a totalitarian state? Where would you draw the line? After all, how much do you know about the BNP's policies? And would you also lock up people from parties such as Respect, Veritas and UKIP? And what about the socialist Labour party? They all have rather extreme views. it's nonsense again old lad, yet again you haven't considered hhe impact of your actions. Another nail in the coffin for your policy is this: in the seventies, we detained terrorist suspects without trial. the result was martyrs, and martyrs who encouraged the biggest upsurge in terrorism we have ever seen. So let me suggest to you that arresting people for their political views would do the same thing. To cap it all, Wainderful wangel, you didn't even answer question 1! question 1 asked a very specific thing, and you didn't answer it. As to question 2, you didn't answer that either! You said you'd ban circumcision because it wastes health resources, but the debate about wasting health resources is another debate and not what the question was asking about. You really must adopt more precision in your approach old lad, because at the moment your approach to constructive argument is sloppy to say the least. Now, assuming that we don't lock up our political opponents or people whose ideas we find unacceptable, and asuming that circumcision of a male is still lawfful, which it is, what would you do if your children adopted either of the courses I have outtlined above in the two questions?
You are wrong about privacy and living space as well, Wainderful wangel. even your purported masters in the third reich wouldn't have agreed with that policy! For onee thing, cells only legistically fit a certain number of people in. For another, if you keep prisoners in squalid conditions they are more likely to riot, and with hundreds to a cell, how would you control them? shoot them! Answers wainderful wangel, but even then, hundreds of desperate men would overpower your prison staff, even were they to be armed. what would the result be? That's right, no prison staff! So the king of the non sequiturs serves up yet another non sequitur, but the problem is that he isn't aware what a non sequitur is.
If my child joined an extremist political organisation then I'd remove it from that organisation and take what ever actions were necesary to prevent it from rejoining that organisation. NO parent should be allowed to make it's son be sircumsised but noone should be allowed to be sircumsised. Prisoners wouldn't be able to riot because they'd all be tied up and only a few at a time would be released to eat food. Also Each member of prison staff would have the necessary weaponery to kill any prisoner attempting to create an unstable atmosphere within the prison boundaries. As for your point about martyrs, well when an extremist was arrested, no media would be told. All of what I've said in all my posts isn't the attitude of a totalitarian, just someone who looks out for the best interests of society.
Right I'm going to be completely blunt about this: Wainderful Wangel, that claptrap about the best interests of society won't avail you at all, as it's the same cowardly vale that the nazis hid behind, the same cowardly vale that characterised the tenure of Stalin, Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, shall I go on? You use the BNP as an example of an organisation you would have banned: how would you feel if I were to tell you that your views are far more extreme than theirs? the fact is you know nothing about the subjects about which you claim to have all the answers. The fact is that you assume that your views, by default, are the views in the best interests of society, unlike any historian I have ever come across. You condemn people for claiming exclusivity of ideas, and yet you do the same. And you still didn't get round to the fundamental idea of defining what you mean by an extremist organisation. I repeat, take far more care about formulating your arguments old lad, especially if you want to take me on at the proverbial despatch box. now to this ludicrous nonsense about tying prisoners up. What would you do about the innocent people who died in prison? what about remand prisoners who haven't even been convicted of anything? I tell you, you would have to spend hundreds of billions of pounds compensating the innocent victims of your regime, those wrongfully convicted, for your extremist nonsensical practices. Would a person serving a months' sentence for non-payment of a TV license be tied to a murderer, or a prisoner convicted of a similar offence? I could go on, but I shan't. Instead I shall restate the questions as I'm aware I have dragged this off-topic: 1. What would you do if your child joined a political organisation of which you didn't approve, or adopted an ideology of which you didn't approve? How would you treat your son or daughter if they joined/adopted the organisation/ideology after they turned 18? 2. should parents be allowed to have male children circumcised to honour a religious or secular custom? PS: I would observe in passing that the waste of money argument, if I might call it that, is yet another non sequirur for reasons that should appear obvious.
I wouldn't mix all the types of criminal together. Murderers, Rapists, Pedofiles would be put together. Drug addicts and dealers together, Burglars together, and people who committed more minor offenses together. I don't agree with the TV lisence. Under the current laws which I think are too lenient, if my child joined an extremist organisation I would prevent him from c ontinuing its membership if I could and if not I would completely disassociate myself from it. The BNP have very extreme views, not all of them have been expressed because they're not in power. I define extremists as people who wish to impose severe restrictions on peoples freedom, persecute people simply because of their personal atributes, e.g race, genda, etc and in other ways rule aggressively..
Well, full house, wainderful wangel! I declare you an extremist! seize him, freeze him, make sure his lawyer never sees him! Cut his tongue out! Tie him up! children? Take them away! what's that? Wrongful conviction? Oh. What do we do now?
There is very little point trying to argue with a destructive maniac like yourself, i'm afraid.
Though I can well imagine it would hurt me to know that my child believed in an extremest fassion, and I also think I would blame myself for the way the child turned out. I would not disown my child. I brought the child into the world for good or worse, and no matter what I would be its mother, so, I'd still love them, and hope that my child is happy without hurting anyone undoly. Now, as to the second question. I can't say that people should be prevented from circumcising their sons do to secular or religious views, because I'm not the person to judge whether they are right or wrong. However, I personally will not circumcise, or have my son circumcised. I believe myself that if boys were meant to be born without that bit of skin they would have been. But that is me, and I'm also quite aware that others see this differently.
Um, yes, I would tell my child what I thought about it if it believed in an extreme fashion. I would not let it go that far without at least saying something.
I would disown any child of mine convicted of a serious offence, serious offence being defined by section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
Disown? You can tell the child to stop it, but to disown is still cruel. You should give the child a chance to change its view.
No! Were my child convicted of a serious offence, after having all the advantages he or she could possibly be given by me - and believe me, any child of mine would be sure to get those - I would have nothing more to do with them, end of story. They would not deserve any support unless of course they were wrongfully convicted.
I'd like them to research all different belief systems as they grow up. I never got enough of a chance to broaden my horizons and I'm just starting to now, although I lean toward the Pagan path, anything outside of a closed-building environment (except I would join a buddhist monestary and take a vow of silence and stuff if I could) I believe everyone has the right to choose, and I don't even think of what I believe in as a deity anyway, but if they want to, that's fine. I'll be a supportive mother in the future.
Well, that question is a very difficult one to answer. So I’ll start on the second question. No I don’t believe that a parent should be allowed to have a child circumsized for any purpose unless there is a medical reason why it needs to be done. I personally think the procedure is barbaric and definitely do not buy into the argument that a new born baby doesn’t feel any pain. By the same token I also do not agree that any parent should be allowed to say what medical treatment a child should and should not receive based on their religion, i.e. In the case of jahova’s witnesses who do not believe that blood transfusions should be allowed. Fortunately the courts already appear to share this view and in most instances such cases will be taken to the high courts where a decision will be made in favour of the child.
As to whether I would disown my child for joining an extreme movement? I think the answer to that would have to be no. When you become a parent, you discover a new kind of love, a feeling you never thought it was possible to feel, and it doesn’t matter what happens to you, your child is always your first priority. When I had Nathan, I had a very rough time giving birth. I shall spare you the details because, quite frankly, you really don’t wanna know, grins, but let’s just say I went through a lot of desperation, a lot of pain (well it’s childbirth it’s supposed to be painful but no one tells you exactly how painful), and I had some fairly serious complications. but when they eventually delivered Nathan, my first words were … is he ok? Not, oh thank god that’s over, nothing like that, at that point in time something clicks that makes you forget about yourself, and that baby is the only thing that matters in the entire world. But of course that baby doesn’t stay a baby for ever and mine is now a terrible two and a half year old, well there abouts anyway …
And all through its life, your child will do things that you don’t like. And I think that here lies the difference, you may not like your child for the things he/she does, but you will always love them.
I would like to think that my son will grow up with a balanced view of the world, to be tolerant of others, and to be a loving, caring person who is sensitive to others … however, he is an individual and I am aware that he may have some views/opinions that are not the same as my own. I also realize that he may do things in life which I might have serious issue with. If he joined an extreme movement I would make it very clear that I disapproved, I would not let any such material be brought into my house but what he does away from my house is something which I have no control over.
With regard to whether I would disown him for committing a serious crime, again, I would never disown my child. I wouldn’t support him, I wouldn’t stand up for him, and I would make it absolutely clear what I thought of him because of the things he had done, but he is my son, nothing will ever change that, and the thought of disassociating myself with him, and something then potentially happening to him and me not being there for him, or perhaps not even knowing about it, is not one which I could ever contemplate.
My grandfather on my dad’s side of the family left when my dad was 14, not for any disownment reasons .. but because of divorce. 6 years ago my dad’s sister was killed in a car accident, and it was something I always thought about, the fact that this guy, wherever in the world he might be, has a daughter who has died, and he doesn’t even know. The thought of that happening to my son and me not even knowing about it would be unbearable, just because you don’t agree with what your child has done, positively despise them for what they potentially have done, doesn’t stop you being a parent, and doesn’t stop you loving that child.
I'd say no. They wont' have to share them. I and my wife would teach them what we believe but I'm more than happy and i know she'll be more than happy to allow them to think for themselves and ask questions.