News Was Oprah right to preach about Obama's moral superiority?

[fourier jr]

It felt more like a religious revival meeting. In spite of being introduced as the "First Lady of Television", Oprah Winfrey could as -easily have been described as the preacher-in-chief. Endorsing Barack Obama as "the one, the one I have been waiting for", Ms Winfrey played the unlikely role of John the Baptist to Mr Obama's Jesus.

Addressing a boisterous crowd of 8,000 who had queued outside for more than an hour in the freezing cold, Ms Winfrey did not once by name mention Hillary Clinton, who remains the Democratic frontrunner. Nor did Mr Obama. But the combined message was more than clear: Mrs Clinton lacks the moral rectitude to lead the US. Only Mr Obama possesses that.

"It is your time to seize the opportunity to support a man who, as the Bible says, loves mercy and does justly," the television celebrity told the packed indoor stadium. "We need a president who has a conscience and who knows how to consult his conscience so that he can proceed with moral authority. It isn't enough to tell the truth - we need politicians who know how to be the truth."

etc etc

In contrast to Mrs Clinton's stump speech, which is replete with policy detail and which emphasises her "strength and experience", Mr Obama's standard address is about "changing the way we do business in Washington". It emphasises his "unique" outsider -credentials to push that through.

Following on from Ms Winfrey, who concluded: "I'm sick of politics as usual. We need Barack Obama," the Illinois senator picked up on the TV host's semi-biblical theme. Quoting Martin Luther King, Mr Obama urged voters to seize the "fierce urgency of now".

He said: "I give praise and honour to God. Look at the day the Lord has made."

etc

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8efa8572-a78a-11dc-a25a-0000779fd2ac.html

I can hardly believe these people aren't the laughing stock of the country. It's actually really scary that people who talk like that in politics aren't totally ignored.

 

[ShawnD]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8efa8572-a78a-11dc-a25a-0000779fd2ac.html

I can hardly believe these people aren't the laughing stock of the country. It's actually really scary that people who talk like that in politics aren't totally ignored.

How is this different from any other political rally?

 

[fourier jr]

You mean all politicians & their supporters talk like that in the US? Does everyone think Barack Obama is "the way, the truth & the life?"

 

[Contrapositive]

You mean all politicians & their supporters talk like that in the US? Does everyone think Barack Obama is "the way, the truth & the life?"

No, but apparently Oprah does. Honestly, I don't see anything unusual in this article. Religion is, and always has been, a big part of politics, unfortunately.

 

[Astronuc]

It's a shame that policitians resort to religious rhetoric when campaigning or speaking in public. I find it rather disingenuous, but the many in the public lap it up.

 

[Economist]

It's a shame that policitians resort to religious rhetoric when campaigning or speaking in public. I find it rather disingenuous, but the many in the public lap it up.

It may be a shame. But I hardly find it suprising.

 

[Evo]

It's not unusual, but it's still appalling.

If Obama would drop his hokey "evangelist for President" schtick, I might have voted for him. It's just makes me doubt his honesty. Ok, so I doubt the honesty of all of them, he just stands out as a major disappointment in my mind.

The problem is anyone that honestly announces that they aren't the pawns of their religious convictions won't get elected in the US.

It's just really sad, I hate election time, it just reminds me of how much control organized religion has over everything we do.

 

[opus]

Actually Obama is one of the braver ones. Nearly all politicians "cater" to their crowd in order to gain more votes. For many of them, it's an issue of who they're talking to, not what they're talking about. Heck, you can have non-religious politicans suddenly becoming "spiritual" when confronting a religious crowd. It's about votes, and ultimately politics has become more about PR than it has about standing up for real ideas.

 

[chroot]

Religion has to permeate political rallies simply because most Americans are religious, and they are accustomed to receiving moral guidance when it is couched in religious rhetoric. The good news is that few elected politicians, with the exception of Dubya, go on to actually make decisions based solely on their religious convictions. Most of them seem to use religion as leverage to gain votes, but then mostly leave it at the door when it comes time to make decisions.

I'm sure there are millions of counter-examples, but this is my overall view -- it's mostly just a parlor trick to get elected.

- Warren

 

[Economist]

It's just really sad, I hate election time, it just reminds me of how much control organized religion has over everything we do.

Do you really think religions have that much control over our lives? I don't. When's the last time you weren't able to do something you wanted because of religion?

It's about votes, and ultimately politics has become more about PR than it has about standing up for real ideas.

Again, why does this surprise anybody? This is the way politics is, and this is the way politics will be forever. Probably one reason I have pretty much no confidence in politics.

Most of them seem to use religion as leverage to gain votes, but then mostly leave it at the door when it comes time to make decisions.

I agree. And this isn't only with regards to religion. There seems to be many cases in which politicians say one thing for votes, yet they do another. Usually they're much more talk then they are action. Or in other words, "All bark and no bite!"

 

[Evo]

Do you really think religions have that much control over our lives? I don't. When's the last time you weren't able to do something you wanted because of religion?

Watched uncensored TV. Perhaps you aren't aware of how organized religion affects our every day lives. Two friends of mine from high school became "born again Southern Baptists". They talked me into going to one of their "prayer meeting's". First they prayed that they would all become rich, seriously. then the rest of the meeting was devoted to writing campaigns to get tv shows that they disliked cancelled. The "minister" told them that marketing research considered there were 10,000 real people for every 1 letter the networks and sponsors received. Pre-prepared letter templates complaining about the shows (which most had never even watched) were handed out and each church member was asked to re-write or retype them onto their own stationary, then bring them into next week's meeting where the letters would then be driven by volunteers to a number of mailboxes in the surrounding counties so they didn't all appear to be coming from one place.

They don't stop at tv shows, it's anything that they disagree with. You have no idea how many of our little "freedoms" we've lost thanks to organized religion. I can't buy alcohol on Sundays here at the grocery store - Blue Law (church). Just lots and lots of things.

Similar to the edict that came out recently from the Catholic church warning all Catholics not to vote for anyone that was not pro-life.

 

[fourier jr]

They don't stop at tv shows, it's anything that they disagree with. You have no idea how many of our little "freedoms" we've lost thanks to organized religion. I can't buy alcohol on Sundays here at the grocery store - Blue Law (church). Just lots and lots of things.

Similar to the edict that came out recently from the Catholic church warning all Catholics not to vote for anyone that was not pro-life.

I think it was Christiane Amanpour's "God's Warriors" special where some religious nut said they wouldn't give up trying to make abortions illegal. They would wait out the Supreme Court until they have no more "activist judges" so they can get the ruling they want. They're no different from the Scientologists in that respect.

 

[EL]

Again, why does this surprise anybody? This is the way politics is, and this is the way politics will be forever.

In US, that is. There's another world out there too, where politics is not show business.

 

[drankin]

In US, that is. There's another world out there too, where politics is not show business.

What world is that?

 

[mgb_phys]

Most of them seem to use religion as leverage to gain votes, but then mostly leave it at the door when it comes time to make decisions.

They're OK, just normal lying schemers - what scares me is the ones that don't use it to get votes but do believe it when they get through the door (eg. Tony Blair).

 

[russ_watters]

In US, that is. There's another world out there too, where politics is not show business.

You actually believe that? Politics everywhere and forever is show business.

 

[Economist]

Watched uncensored TV. Perhaps you aren't aware of how organized religion affects our every day lives. Two friends of mine from high school became "born again Southern Baptists". They talked me into going to one of their "prayer meeting's". First they prayed that they would all become rich, seriously. then the rest of the meeting was devoted to writing campaigns to get tv shows that they disliked cancelled. The "minister" told them that marketing research considered there were 10,000 real people for every 1 letter the networks and sponsors received. Pre-prepared letter templates complaining about the shows (which most had never even watched) were handed out and each church member was asked to re-write or retype them onto their own stationary, then bring them into next week's meeting where the letters would then be driven by volunteers to a number of mailboxes in the surrounding counties so they didn't all appear to be coming from one place.

This is part of my point. I imagine most of these people completely hate most of the stuff on TV. Yet, they rarely ever get it off the air, because I believe they are lacking the power. They also fight hard against pornography, but they don't seem to be winning that battle either. I think their power is very limited, which is definitely a good thing.

I think they mainly do these things because it makes them feel good rather than actually making any actual changes about what's on TV. They can sleep well at night thinking that they are fighting for something important.

Religous fanatics are definitely not the only people who do this sort of thing. Many Americans think I shouldn't be able to freely trade with individuals from other countries? Other Americans think that I shouldn't be allowed to eat trans fats? Other Americans think that business owners shouldn't be allowed to let customers smoke? I'm convinced that many people are out their trying to limit freedom, and they all piss me off. Luckily though, most of them only have small amounts of power (including the church).

They don't stop at tv shows, it's anything that they disagree with. You have no idea how many of our little "freedoms" we've lost thanks to organized religion. I can't buy alcohol on Sundays here at the grocery store - Blue Law (church). Just lots and lots of things.

I'm confused. So your state prohibits the sale of alcohol on Sunday? Or you just can't buy alcohol at that specific store?

Similar to the edict that came out recently from the Catholic church warning all Catholics not to vote for anyone that was not pro-life.

Again, case in point. Catholics (among others I imagine) make abortion such a key issue. And yet, they'll never get their way.

You actually believe that? Politics everywhere and forever is show business.

LOL.

 

[opus]

Again, why does this surprise anybody? This is the way politics is, and this is the way politics will be forever. Probably one reason I have pretty much no confidence in politics.

That's a bit cynical, because politics, despite its hate, does effect our lives. I look at Tommy Douglas, a man from a rural farm who eventually became province premier, who brought public health care to Manitoba (and a balanced budget!). The idea was eventually implemented nation-wide due to its success, and now Canada has public health care. Granted, it has been ailing lately, but there is still an allure of a politician that stands his ground rather than stand on water.

I think you're wrong in saying that religion has no "relevance" to our day-to-day lives, either. The problem is not with the actual organized religion itself, but the values behind the religion instilled in people. Yes, religion may not stop economic freedom, which you'e mostly interested in, because the Bible does not say much about capitalism. But if you look at the Koran, you will see why Muslim countries do not have banking industries. If you look at the Torah, you will see why Jewish farms have to close down on certain days.

But ultimately what is important about religion is the social values that it indoctrinates in people. You may certainly feel alright if you're a white, middle-class, heterosexual male, but try being a homosexual or being a woman in the face of an increasingly religious America and you will see why at times, it does matter.

 

[ShawnD]

Yes, religion may not stop economic freedom, which you'e mostly interested in, because the Bible does not say much about capitalism.

The bible states that you are not supposed to work on the sabbath. It's so strict a rule that Moses killed a man for gathering sticks.
It's been relaxed over the centuries, but it's still pretty big for some people. My parents say that when they were kids, pretty much every store was closed on sunday. It was also illegal to sell alcohol on sunday, and still is in some areas (wherever Evo lives).

The bible also states that you are not allowed to lend money at interest.

"If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest."
-Exodus, 22:25

"And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase."
-Leviticus, 25:35-37

"Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest into possesses it."
-Deuteronomy, 23:20-21"



If you're a Christian, Muslim, or Jew with bonds in your investment portfolio, have fun burning in hell

 

[Evo]

This is part of my point. I imagine most of these people completely hate most of the stuff on TV. Yet, they rarely ever get it off the air, because I believe they are lacking the power.

The show was "Soap" they succeeded. I suggest you read up about it.

I suggest you read up on a lot, it seems you have a very limited understanding of the world around you. Not trying to sound harsh, but a lot of reading about past cultural and social events in the US would really help improve your understanding of what has and is happening in the country as far as social and political dynamics are concerned.

 

[Contrapositive]

But ultimately what is important about religion is the social values that it indoctrinates in people. You may certainly feel alright if you're a white, middle-class, heterosexual male, but try being a homosexual or being a woman in the face of an increasingly religious America and you will see why at times, it does matter.

How is religion oppressing women in today's America? Illegal abortions maybe? Which is isn't even necessarily a religious issue (although religion is primarily used to rally support). I know Atheists who oppose abortions. Also, abortions will probably never be banned nation wide no matter how many people oppose it.

 

[mgb_phys]

"Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together."
Presumably Gortex and Polartech fleece together are OK?

Also from the entertaining Deut22.
"When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence."
- Nice to know that OSHA is divinely inspired.

 

[Contrapositive]

Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest

Looks like we can still charge interest to impoverished third world pagans and still get into heaven!

 

[Evo]

How is religion oppressing women in today's America? Illegal abortions maybe? Which is isn't even necessarily a religious issue (although religion is primarily used to rally support). I know Atheists who oppose abortions. Also, abortions will probably never be banned nation wide no matter how many people oppose it.

It was banned before, and in the early 70's only New York and California were allowing early first term abortions. An essay I wote in my freshman year at college was "A case for abortion in the US", so I did quite a bit of research at the time. My English professor asked if he could use parts of it in a book he was writing and I signed a waiver. I always assumed it was going to be an example of good writing since he loved it, although he was against abortion.

 

[mgb_phys]

If you're a Christian, Muslim, or Jew with bonds in your investment portfolio, have fun burning in hell

So the sub-prime loan crisis is an act of God!

 

[ShawnD]

So the sub-prime loan crisis is an act of God!

Allāhu Akbar!

 

[Economist]

That's a bit cynical, because politics, despite its hate, does effect our lives. I look at Tommy Douglas, a man from a rural farm who eventually became province premier, who brought public health care to Manitoba (and a balanced budget!). The idea was eventually implemented nation-wide due to its success, and now Canada has public health care. Granted, it has been ailing lately, but there is still an allure of a politician that stands his ground rather than stand on water.

Ok, well let's compare the good and the bad. What about Castro, Kim Jong-Il, and Hitler? No offense, but I don't know that what Tommy Douglas did is really that great, and only time will tell.

Yes, religion may not stop economic freedom, which you'e mostly interested in, because the Bible does not say much about capitalism.

Not true. I do not care only about economic freedom. I honestly care about freedom in every sense of the word.

Most conversations we've gotten into on this forum have been related to economics which is why it may seem that way. My guess for this, is that my economic views are very different from most on this forum, which is why conversations of that nature come up. If I were to ramble on about many of my ideas regarding freedom in other areas, few would disagree and therefore few would comment (there'd be no discussion). For example, I doubt most on this forum would object to my beliefs that individuals should be able to watch what they want on TV, practice whatever religion they want, or have the right to bear arms (ok, that one would probably have some takers). Furthermore, many of you probably think I am a republican, which is simply not true. Democrats piss me off for their lack of respect for economic freedom, while republicans piss me off for their lack of respect for personal freedom. Essentially, I don't see either party as primarily standing for freedom, and therefore I don't stand for either party.

Another reason I am such a big fan of economic freedom is because I believe it is crucial to personal freedom, and also embodies personal freedom. As Milton Friedman said, "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

But ultimately what is important about religion is the social values that it indoctrinates in people.

I am not denying that religous values don't influence peoples values, as they surely do. I don't know if I'd go as far to call it indoctrination, because that term fails to recognize that many people choose religions that they feel are personally beneficial, correct, or some other criteria they value. Furthermore, many people choose to not be part of any religion. Gary Becker even has some article showing how religions thrive when there is a religion free-market, meaning when people aren't forced and various religions have to compete with one another for members.

You may certainly feel alright if you're a white, middle-class, heterosexual male, but try being a homosexual or being a woman in the face of an increasingly religious America and you will see why at times, it does matter.

I disagree. First off, I don't believe religions have that much power, which is surely a good thing (I don't want them to have power, because if they had enough, they would definitely limit my personal freedom). The problems you guys seem to be worrying about is what John Stuart Mill reffered to as the "tyranny of the majority" in the Book "On Liberty." I just don't see religion currently having that kind of wide spread influence and power. Going back to John Stuart Mill's idea of the "tyranny of the majority," you should also realize that it's not only religion. In a democracy, the majority rules, so if you don't agree with universal health care or social security it might not matter, because you will be forced to pay into that system. Essentially, I feel like you guys are suffering from a bias which allows you to see the "tyranny of the majority" only in regards to things in which you are not in that majority. The "tyranny of the majority" is also one reason that I think democracies are over rated. I'm not saying we don't need democracy, but I definitely think that the topics we should be allowed to vote on should be limited. For example, free speech, trade, etc are personal freedoms as far as I am concerned, and therefore are not things to be voted on.

Furthermore, religions do try to limit homosexuals freedom. However, the only battle that they are currently winning (which I imagine will change in the future) is the one on marriage. Religous folks disagree with homosexuality, yet they can't really do anything to stop it. How many people do you know who are openly homosexual? How many people do you know that are homosexual and live with a partner? This is proof in my opinion that religions don't have that much power. Although they would love to make homosexuality illegal, make abortion illegal, etc, they simply don't have the power to make their dreams a reality. Their lack of power is a beautiful thing in my opinion.

You also mentioned women. In what ways are womens' freedom inhibited due to religion? I hope you are mainly referring to Islam, because I don't see that happening in other religions.

Speaking of Muslims, some would like nothing more than to decrease my freedom because they disagree with my lifestyle. Once again, they haven't been able to do so because they lack the power. And once again, I think it is great that they lack that power.

 

[Economist]

The show was "Soap" they succeeded. I suggest you read up about it.

I just did. The show still ran for 4 years, and that was back in 1977 - 1981. From reading about it on wikipedia, it sounds like religous fanatics were probably not the only people who disliked this show. Interestingly, all episodes are currently available on DVD. So I'm still not seeing this major influence of religion in my personal life. If it's so wide spread I imagine you won't have trouble listing, numerous (and even more recent) TV shows, movies, etc. If they have so much power, then why is pornography still legal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_(TV_series )

I suggest you read up on a lot, it seems you have a very limited understanding of the world around you. Not trying to sound harsh, but a lot of reading about past cultural and social events in the US would really help improve your understanding of what has and is happening in the country as far as social and political dynamics are concerned.

LOL. Instead, of actually answering my question and listing numerous examples, you essentially call me narrow-minded and stupid. I think this is proof that you don't have many concrete examples of your claim, otherwise I'm sure you would have bombarded me with them to prove that I am wrong.

It was banned before, and in the early 70's only New York and California were allowing early first term abortions.

Do you really think this only had to do with religion? It seems that many people were against abortion during that time period. Maybe it was more a sign of the times, instead of religious power and indoctrination. In any event, abortion is now illegal. Even John Roberts (the Supreme Court Justice that George W Bush nominated) said, "Roe vs Wade is settled law of the land."

 

[ShawnD]

Democrats piss me off for their lack of respect for economic freedom, while republicans piss me off for their lack of respect for personal freedom.

This is a very common opinion. I remember a few years ago some libertarian group, probably CATO, released an online survey asking what people believe. After all of the questions, it would plot your ideas on a grid that was from socialism to capitalism and democracy to despotism with the four groups being libertarian, democrat, republican, and something like stalinism (communist dictator). Most people fell within the libertarian group.

Obviously the survey was designed to point in that direction, but the questions were fairly straight forward with yes/no answers. Do you support farm subsidies yes/no. Should gay marriage be banned yes/no. It put me in the libertarian group, close to the democrat side.

 

[opus]

Unfortunately libertarianism/Ron Paul is the new fad for raging white nerds on the internet. I read about it on Something Awful, so it must be true.

 

[ShawnD]

Unfortunately libertarianism/Ron Paul is the new fad for raging white nerds on the internet. I read about it on Something Awful, so it must be true.

That entire site is full of retards. Remember the pants sh|tting fad? And in their debate forum a guy was arguing with me, saying that drugs working on the same neurotransmitters cause completely different effects because, and this is an exact quote, "they're different drugs." Then of course I get my own callout thread because some high school biology buff thinks he knows more about drugs and the brain than somebody who actually has an education in that field and has worked for several drug companies.

I've pretty much written off that website as being the exact opposite of reality.

 

[EL]

What world is that?

Some of the strange countries in which you play football with your feet.

You actually believe that?

I don't believe. I know.

Politics everywhere and forever is show business.

Although I guess it's strange for you to imagine political campains without patriotic flag waving rallys blessed by god, debates in which the politicians actually discuss politics, and politicians who are in the game for ideological reasons, they actually exist. (Sorry to ruin your conception of the world.)

 

[ShawnD]

Although I guess it's strange for you to imagine political campains without patriotic flag waving rallys blessed by god, debates in which the politicians actually discuss politics, and politicians who are in the game for ideological reasons, they actually exist. (Sorry to ruin your conception of the world.)

Seems to happen quite a bit in british-style government. I don't even think our british-style party leaders are publicly elected to lead the party; they just sort of appear. If I'm not mistaken, elected members of parliament decide who leads the party, then the public votes for members of parliament; you can't directly vote for the leader of the country.

It sure stops a lot of the in-party arguing. Hillary and Obama are attacking each others credibility in order to gain leadership of their own party, and it might lead to that party losing the overall election. Hillary turns out to be a lesbian and Obama is responsible for a double murder, then republicans win the election by default. It seems counter-productive for the party to be attacking itself.

 

[mgb_phys]

Seems to happen quite a bit in british-style government. I don't even think our british-style party leaders are publicly elected to lead the party; they just sort of appear.

Correct - you vote for each MP individually as a person. They can belong to a party but this isn't reflected in the ballot. Once elected an MP can leave the party or even swap sides without having to be re-elected. Independant MPs often win if the local party candidate is unpopular, or if they stand for a particular local issue.

The party chooses a leader from within the elected MPs, usually the leader is known going into the election, but a change of leader during a sitting government is done by the party.
Interestingly one of the main critisims aimed at the previous leader, Tony Blair, was that he made it too presidential by being too much a figurehead of the party. The prime minister is supposed to be officially 'first among equals'

It sure stops a lot of the in-party arguing.

No it just makes it really vicious behind closed doors among their fellow MPs!

 

[Yonoz]

Allāhu Akbar!

Congratulations, you have joined the game of Homeland Security tag.

 

[Alfi]

introduced as the "First Lady of Television", Oprah Winfrey

As to the OP
She 'controls' ( ok more like influance ) more people daily than just about anyone.
Like her or not, she swung an amount of votes just by saying she likes him.

 

[g33kski11z]

I don't know if I'd go as far to call it indoctrination, because that term fails to recognize that many people choose religions that they feel are personally beneficial

I think the term indoctrination fits. How many members of this forum were taken to church as a child? How may children do you know of that at an early age {we'll say 5 for the sake of argument} make decisions that they feel are personally beneficial. Not many... unless huge scoops of ice cream and candy are "personally beneficial"...

 

[seycyrus]

I think the term indoctrination fits. How many members of this forum were taken to church as a child? How may children do you know of that at an early age {we'll say 5 for the sake of argument} make decisions that they feel are personally beneficial. Not many... unless huge scoops of ice cream and candy are "personally beneficial"...

How many members were forced to go to school?

How many were forced to wear clothes?

Indoctrination is a poor choice of words.

 

[g33kski11z]

How many members were forced to go to school?

.. ok, I'll give you that.. every little child does have to go to school. {though personally, I think that's a weak statement} You have a choice {for the most part} once you are mature enough to make a responsible decision as to which college you attend or even what high school to go to, do you not?
I think that's where the word "indoctrination" fits. Children do not have a choice in the matter. They are told this is how it is, was and will be...

How many were forced to wear clothes?

Weak. Being told to wear clothes is totally different than being made to attend church.

I stand by my original statement.

 

[drankin]

Should parents be prevented from taking their children to church? If so, on what premise? I'm sure Oprah would not approve!

 

[seycyrus]

.. ok, I'll give you that.. every little child does have to go to school. {though personally, I think that's a weak statement} You have a choice {for the most part} once you are mature enough to make a responsible decision as to which college you attend or even what high school to go to, do you not?.

And you have a choice about attending church, do you not? At least at some age. Generally, this choice occurs before the choice of continuing education.

.. I think that's where the word "indoctrination" fits. Children do not have a choice in the matter. They are told this is how it is, was and will be...

Yes, children are *indoctrinated* into all aspects of society.

.Weak. Being told to wear clothes is totally different than being made to attend church..

It's impressing a belief system.

I stand by my original statement.

Which was just as weak as my statements.

 

[Gokul43201]

Should parents be prevented from taking their children to church? If so, on what premise?

On the premise that the overwhelming majority of churches in this country perpetuate ethical and probably legal fraud? Perhaps this will change when people start getting over this addiction to religion and start suing their parents for forcing them to attend church as children.

 

[g33kski11z]

And you have a choice about attending church, do you not? At least at some age.

.. Yes, you do.. after being told that if you disregard the given belief system you will burn in hell. That seems fair..

Yes, children are *indoctrinated* into all aspects of society.

Right, but what other aspect of society is an unprovable myth?

From dictionary.com "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view"
... if your church tells you about all of the religious "gods", past and present, then maybe it wouldn't fit.

Should parents be prevented from taking their children to church?

Yes, until they are able to make an informed intelligent decision on their own. My child (9) has never been to a church, when he is old enough to make an informed decision, we will go to every church, temple, mosque or whatever is available to us and he can make up his own mind.

 

[seycyrus]

.. Yes, you do.. after being told that if you disregard the given belief system you will burn in hell. That seems fair...

Did your church tell you this? Mine didn't. Mine concentrated on being nice to people. Maybe we should just stop people from going to *your* church.

My school told me that if I didn't pay attention and do my homework, I wouldn't amount to anything in life! I hear that this *myth* is propogated widely. Such indoctrination!

.. Yes, until they are able to make an informed intelligent decision on their own. My child (9) has never been to a church, when he is old enough to make an informed decision, we will go to every church, temple, mosque or whatever is available to us and he can make up his own mind.

So, you propose not allowing people to bring children to church. What should they do with the children for the hour or two every Sunday while they are attending (if they choose to attend)?

It sounds like you are trying to create a systematic procedure and apply it to the raising of other people's children. That sure sounds like indoctrination to me.

 

[seycyrus]

On the premise that the overwhelming majority of churches in this country perpetuate ethical and probably legal fraud? Perhaps this will change when people start getting over this addiction to religion and start suing their parents for forcing them to attend church as children.

This is a ridiculous statement.

The "majority" of churches?

Prove it.

Once you do that, prove to me that there is a disproportionate perpetuation of said fraud in churches as opposed to every other group structure.

It's amazing to me that people who are assumed to scientific, posit such illogical statements simply to promote their own belief system.

 

[drankin]

On the premise that the overwhelming majority of churches in this country perpetuate ethical and probably legal fraud? Perhaps this will change when people start getting over this addiction to religion and start suing their parents for forcing them to attend church as children.

Prevented by whom? The government? Or is this just your biased opinion? I'm the VP of the stewardship board of my church. Trust me, no fraud there. A church is for families. Now, if we decided to hire babysitters so us adults could attend church while our kids are wondering why we get to go to church and they can't join their parents... That's rediculous.

 

[mgb_phys]

They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.

It's like selling timeshares in an undiscovered country!

 

[g33kski11z]

*your* church

Doesn't exist.

My school told me that if I didn't pay attention and do my homework, I wouldn't amount to anything in life!

..um, I think that's true, you don't??

So, you propose not allowing people to bring children to church. What should they do with the children for the hour or two every Sunday while they are attending

Children should be outside playing, not being brainwashed to worship a mythological pagan deity.

They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.

QFT

 

[drankin]

They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.

It's like selling timeshares in an undiscovered country!

Like I said, I'm on the stewardship board, most (but not all) churches are not a business for profit. Non-profit. The only person getting paid at our church is the pastor and we determine his salary.

Even if there is no proof other than a belief on an ancient text. How is it a detriment to our society to teach teach good values? Where else is a society to get a foundation in values? The criminal system?

Sure, there are people who will exploit religion for gain, those are the people we hear about. They are not genuine people who would practice what they might preach.

What we don't hear about is the rest of the community that are good people because they adhere to value system they adopted due to their religion. Pretty much every major religion on the planet has a pretty good value system. And many jump around to whatever religion seems ideal to them. Or none at all. To expose your own child to a form of religion as a way to "indoctrinate" good values is not a bad thing. Some parents are extreme and unrealistic but they would be the same whether it was via religion or something else.

 

[Gokul43201]

They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.

It's like selling timeshares in an undiscovered country!

That answers the questions addressed to me. Thanks, mgb.