Comments on The Society of Children

C'mon. The guy used Chick tracts. Are you sure he wasn't some kind of performance artist making a commentary on religion? No one who seriously was all about Jesus would use Chick tracts.

Social services needs to be called in to take the child away and have the child raised by a wholesome moral secular family. Any person who would teach an intolerant religion such as Christianity to a child is simply abusive. Have you seen Jesus Camp??

Wow, that was a powerful piece. A demonstration of depth. As a generic slog fan I appreciate your entries. Then I learned you were from Mutare (my link through a failed JV) and thought you were cool. But this entry just earned you another stripe.

LTM

Wow, that was a powerful piece. A demonstration of depth. As a generic slog fan I appreciate your entries. Then I learned you were from Mutare (my link through a failed JV) and thought you were cool. But this entry just earned you another stripe.

LTM

oops, I hit the button twice. Sorry, but it is 1/2/7.

My friend got a tract from one of those baby kids, and we spent the evening talking about what a creep that guy is. The tract is called SOMEBODY GOOFED! and at the end the Devil takes off his face. I'm glad I was raised in a godless home.

I have always believed that the State should take custody of all children at birth and raise them in such away that they never come into contact with the adult world at large until such time that they are adults. This would put an end not only to this insidious transference of belief systems, but would protect adults from the annoyance and health risks of constant exposure to disease carrying, noisy little children. We could also stop childproofing the shit out of everything.

The non-religious minority should be cautious about advocating thought-crime legislation. There are lots of people who would love that kind of power, and I wouldn't want any of them raising my kids. Look what happens every so often when a schoolteacher tells kids there's no Santa.

Also, I don't believe the evangelist father has made an informed, developed decision either. He and the 9-year-old have made equally sound and rational decisions.

I'm more worried about the GLBT kids that are within these types of families. The whole Exodus type of thing is sick, and the psychological abuse shouldn't be tolerated. Homosexuality hasn't been a disorder for over 30 years, yet we still allow parents to commit psychological abuse upon a lot of kids. I'm actually suprised more of us aren't more fucked up.

I should re-phrase... Homosexuality has never been a disorder... but it hasn't been a "listed" disorder now for 30+ years.

Eh. Kids are pretty resiliant. When they grow up and start being exposed to the wider world, much of this indoctrination comes crashing down.

No matter how much this parent tries to deny it, in a few years for these kids reality will be the one thing that refuses to go way.

I'm sure we all know this, but just to make sure it's actually said:

Deciding which ideas consititute a "problem" for children is a flawed and subjective concept. Charles thinks Chistianity is a lie, and God (or whoever) bless him for that. But I'm afraid Charles is rather in the minority on that point in this God-fearing land. What makes him right? For a Christian tasked with passing on the true word of God, it's a form of child abuse NOT to try and save their children's souls. Charles, if you really want to do something about this kind of thing, have kids of your own and raise them as atheists.

You're also making an assumption that kids always take on the beliefs of their parents. That is demonstrably false in many, many cases. There is a natural yearning for individuality in human beings, and parental belief systems are usually first in line for dismissal.

Those kids in the picture are probably already plotting their escape, channeling their internal energies toward Godless rebellion as we speak.

Dear Chuck,

I understand that everyone at The Stranger thinks you're deep and shit, so there's no chance that you'll stop posting on The Slog or writing for the paper. Thus, I usually ignore my urge to comment on your ramblings and move on to the next article/post.

So, since there's no way to stop you from writing, is there any chance that you could stop reading? Seriously, is there any chance that could indulge us all and not pick up another book...ever?!?!?

If you could, it would spare us all from having to read your wild misinterpretations and spurious opinions regarding what you've read/been reading. Then, you could just write about the pretty flowers you saw that day or something more your speed.

Thanks,

Readers of The Stranger

P.S. to employees of any store that sells any book - please help Chuck exercise self-control by not selling him any reading material outside of US Magazine.

I am an example of a glbt person who came out of a similar situation just fine. I used to hand out tracts, and I am emphatically not a Christian now, but at the time when I was nine, I believed in it sincerely, albeit childishly.

It's not any worse being encouraged to proselytize than being teased for being too tall or too early developed as a kid. Being a kid is hard. But I think it's kinda like that butterfly that has to struggle out of its cocoon in order to fly.

They'll be all right.

Matthew is totally right. My father forced me to go to a Southern Baptist church whose members were so psychotic it would make your hair fall out. And look at me now, not even twenty years later: confidant, atheist, Volvo-wagon-driving, college educated, Darjeeling-tea-drinking, and I even give money to PBS (KBTC rocks). In short, I’m the wrong-wing Christians’ worst nightmare.

Even at 12 I knew those people were all crazy, hypocritical liars. I also read the Chick tracts about all the hot, gay sex I was going to have in the future and got really turned on, but hey THAT’S ANDREW!

Charles should know this one:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

I'll also point out that taking Christian's kids away from them in a country where 25% of the population believes that there is either a likelihood or a strong likelihood that Jesus will return in 2007 ain't gonna happen.

Why 2007? Wouldn't jeebus want to come back after 2008 when there is a Dem in the whitehouse so he can preach freely to the masses without being hanged as a hippie traitor by the very people that wanted him back?

I would have to elevate the freedom to teach your kids this superstitious ignorance, over rights of the state to stop them from doing so. Hopefully in 500 years though, religion will be some antiquated concept that people wonder how 21st century humans could actually believe.

+1 tiz.

+1 tiffany.

taking kids away from parents for teaching religion? that's a scary power to give to the state. it might be tough on kids -- and some might not make it. but to try to "fix" that seems a far more dangerous aim.

infrequent, do not mince my words. I said "society" not "state." two different things.

point taken.

but how does "society" remove children from a parent?

not trying to mince your words, but, "[the] whole society must outlaw it completely. In the way adults can’t have sex with children because children are not mature enough to decide on their own, we must make it illegal to teach religious beliefs to children not only in schools but at home. "

so they make it illegal. legality is enforced by the state. if i misinterpreted your point, i am open to clarification.

okay, i think i see what you are getting at. i should just say, that is a scary power to give to a society. the "power" being exactly what you suggest: defining teaching a child christianity as a form a child abuse.

i might not agree with what someone wants to teach their child, but i'll defend their right to teach it.

(furthermore, i'd say sexism, racism and homophobia all do more damage. but freedom allows for idiots.)

Hahahaha!

Charles... I adore your words some times. It is a wonder that you can be both so brilliant and so beautifully deluded at the same time.

You are perfectly right of course, in that shoving the nonsense of religion down the throats of children can only be considered child abuse by rational people.

But your proposed solution has about as much chance of being enacted as Richard Simmons has of becoming president, which is to say zero.

Take comfort in the knowledge that some of us escape. My parents tried to raise me as a good middle-of-the-road Christian. I even had a friend in cub scouts try to convert me to a more fire-and-brimstone variety for a short time. It didn't take. I stopped believing in God around the same time I stopped believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny... mythical beings all. It still baffles me that anyone over the age of, oh, say 12, really believes in a god.

Or put another way, almost all of us atheists were raised by religious parents. Proof positive that the indoctrination does not always work.

Matthew's criticism doesn't quite hold up - Mudede is arguing for not presenting anything to a child as truth that is not truth. It would, technically, be just as bad to tell a child as absolute truth that deities do not exist as it would be to tell the child that they do, since neither can be proven as truth. It would be acceptable to say "There is no reason to believe that a god exists, and no proof that it doesn't, but many people seem to find it comforting to believe there is a conscious being behind events they witness, rather than chaotic randomness or cold cause and effect." Personally, I would add that some scholars are of the opinion that the desire to believe in deities results from a natural desire for a parental figure, although it is more healthy to acknowledge that parents will not always be around and thus children must learn to operate independently based solely on considering the consequences of their actions. I would also add that there has been no proof that a belief or disbelief in deities has never been shown to have any practical difference, and thus I don't consider it worth thinking about. However, practically, all of this is beyond the mental capacities of most humans.

We're a pretty ineffective species when you think about it. I mean really, why emotions? They seem to be a species self-destruct mechanism.

I should also note that Mudede accidentally mildly undermines what I understand as his argument with the statement "No one is going to hell, there are no final days in a religious sense, there is no life after death". But, that is simply how one would have to present to a child the fact that we have no reason to believe in any of those awful things, although we also cannot prove for certain that they aren't true no more than we can say that unicorns don't exist somewhere beyond the maximum distance that humans have been able to explore in one way or another.

OK if you are saying "society" and not the government, then I heartily agree with you. But I'm afraid we humans are too attached to our myths for it to happen for hundreds of years. If our species doesn't shed this type of thinking then I fear it will be our downfall. Having these supernatural beliefs about the nature of the universe while at the same time possessing the ability to split the atom is a dangerous combination.

But, Noink, you can't prove a negative. What you can do is say that if something IS true, most of the history of the universe has been an elaborate effort to fake the results to make it look false -- like with literal Christianity, for instance. If God exists as my fundamentalist relatives understand Him, He has spent most of his time in the universe concealing His existence behind a mask of evidence of His non-existence.

Noink, then you'd have to also say that there are some people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that you can no more disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster than you can disprove the existence of a Christian God (or any other god, for that matter).

Praise his noodly appendage:
http://www.venganza.org/

Seems reasonable. Would you also remove the children of all these "World Can't Wait" and "Free Mumia" cunts? Just to be fair of course. You're right thought-policing is very distasteful and I assume you hate all of it's venues.

Yup. I agree with both of you. Fnarf, in the second sentence above, and SDA, with the general term "deities".

Ramen.

On the other hand, I believed in Santa Claus until I was six, and I'm OK now (plus or minus a certain margin of error for "OK").

i like how already a debate started about what would be acceptable to teach and what wouldn't. would you teach there isn't a god(s), would you teach that there may or may not be a god(s), or would you ignore the subject altogether?

but do you really want "society" to decide what you can and can not teach your children about spirituality, god and/or religion?

that's the part that befuddles my mind... not only does that idea sour the momment society decides something you believe is "wrong", but it goes against the principles of freedom entirely. maybe i need to read this book to try an wrap my head around the good in a concept that seems antithetical to such a fundemental value.

Charles wrote:

"we must make it illegal to teach religious beliefs to children not only in schools but at home"

Now, of course, my first impulse, the "natural" impulse, is to challenge this statement, to become emotional, to throw a fit, but because I am a grown-up, and because I am a man of reason, I am willing to consider it.

I'm going to assume that Charles is being rather literal, that he is not really joking and that he is really quite upset concerning what is being done to our children. I'm going to assume this because this because it's true that children suffer and because Charles is a literal and passionate writer. But then we must answer the question of why it is not tyrannical to establish rule in a private home, why it is not tyrannical to bottle up someone's religion. Why is it not totalitarian, Stalinist, etc. etc.?

For the very reason that it is not the state that imposes this new law, but society, that is, culture, the man of reason, whose method of justice is not cruel, but kind.