Religious Nationalism in the US

[Shadow Wolf]

1) Most children would rather stay home and play. Parents are the ones that say "You are getting an education

I was actually thinking of those such as the Amish, or these girls (two or three sisters) my mom went to school with (she's around your age) who were removed from school by their father who believed girls only have to learn to cook and clean.

2) A child has no understanding about vaccines and much less when they are born. It is the parent that says "Get a vaccine" and "No, you are not getting a Covid vaccine (or yes)" because they don't know or understand the ramifications of it.

Then why have there been stories of kids (usually teens) who want the vaccine but can't because the parent said no?

3) A child has no idea about religions. It is the parent that leads and guides until they are old enough to make a decision for themselves (which they do and I did)

Yeah, ok. I was in the fifth grade when I took an interest in learning of ancient religions so I definitely had an idea of them, including Christianity.
Apparently you just think kids aren't that bright or aware of themselves or the world around them. They are.

 

[Viker]

3) A child has no idea about religions. It is the parent that leads and guides until they are old enough to make a decision for themselves (which they do and I did)

Then why allow children to be baptized, if they're not old enough to make decisions for themselves?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then why allow children to be baptized, if they're not old enough to make decisions for themselves?

Baptism for Catholics is like circumcision for us Jews. It is an initiation rite. Just as circumcision brings a boy into the Jewish covenant, baptism initiates a Catholic into the church. It only makes sense to recognize children as part of the church since they are being raised in it. If they change their minds as adults, they have that right. But most people raised Catholic stay catholic. So really, its simply a matter of having these Catholic children recognized formally as part of the church.

Of course, Catholics have other reasons as well, such as saving children from original sin. Baptism is after all a sacrament for them. But among the Catholics I've personally known, the initiation into the church seems to be the bigger issue for them.

 

[Viker]

Baptism for Catholics is like circumcision for us Jews. It is an initiation rite. Just as circumcision brings a boy into the Jewish covenant, baptism initiates a Catholic into the church. It only makes sense to recognize children as part of the church since they are being raised in it. If they change their minds as adults, they have that right. But most people raised Catholic stay catholic. So really, its simply a matter of having these Catholic children recognized formally as part of the church.

But they're still not old enough to make decisions for themselves? I'm still confused here. It seems it's okay to indoctrinate a child but keep them from exploring their options early on, this could be why many stay. From the way I perceive it, baptism is not really an initiation it is a major personal decision and serious step towards salvation.

Of course, I was raised mostly Baptist and they failed at indoctrination with me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But they're still not old enough to make decisions for themselves? I'm still confused here. It seems it's okay to indoctrinate a child but keep them from exploring their options early on, this could be why many stay. From the way I perceive it, baptism is not really an initiation it is a major personal decision and serious step towards salvation.

Of course, I was raised mostly Baptist and they failed at indoctrination with me.

Parents make decisions for children all the time. Parents get to choose their kids religion. Thus if a parent chooses to be catholic, they will raise their kid catholic, necessitating baptism. It doesn't somehow trap the child in the catholic church for their whole life -- they are free to leave when they come of age, join some other religion, be an atheist, just not care about religion, whatever.

 

[metis]

I would respectfully disagree. We are not a communist state that own the children.

I think you should reread post #496 again as that's not what he was saying nor implying.

 

[Kenny]

I think you should reread post #496 again as that's not what he was saying nor implying.

"And they should step aside amd defer to those such as educators, child psychologists and experts in the field. Parents do not own their children and it's past time we start recognizing children as individuals who are not bound to their parents wants for them. It's detrimental to the kids, it's detrimental to society."

To me, this does sound like a government/elite control of children. It takes the parental rights and hands it over to those the government puts in authority. It is here where the schools proceed with "Don't tell your parents you want to change your name and what you believe you are". This act is detrimental to society - the beginning tremors of communist controlled children that are being taught to think like they want them to think.

No go for me.

 

[lukethethird]

Nobody said it was founded on religion. It was founded on Christian principles.

Have you read the US Constitution?

 

[1213]

It doesn't quite seem the FBI forced Twitter, but more like they asked Twitter to follow their own moderation rules. Your article even says this:

"When the Biden administration pressured Twitter and other platforms to crack down more aggressively on "misinformation," it argued that it was merely asking those companies to enforce their own policies. But given the power that the federal government has to make life difficult for Twitter et al. through castigation, regulation, litigation, and legislation, the administration's requests were tantamount to commands."

The article (unless I missed it) didn't give any clear examples of FBI pressure beyond examples of Twitter's own moderation. Do you mind pointing out specific examples?

Even if it would be just about "to enforce their own policies", it would go against the freedom of speech.

I think this kind of news shows that the government has broken the First Amendment.

White House warning: New Twitter ownership means government could lose control of U.S. media – World Tribune: U.S. Politics and Culture, Geopolitics, Northeast Asia, China, Geostrategy-Direct, International Security, Corporate Watch, Media Watch

Federal government using social-media giants to censor Americans (nypost.com)

What do you think would have happened, if Trump would have done that? I believe he would have been successfully impeached.

I also think it's important to take into account the impact of the coronavirus on individuals and the country and how misinformation makes this impact on the "general welfare" worse.

The problem here is, government clearly is not good at telling what is really misinformation. Often it seems it is the biggest spreader of misinformation. We can't ever trust that government has the right information. The responsibility should always be one the reader. And reader should always think is there good reason to believe what was said. Instead of censoring, government should explain why its information is correct. That is the correct way against misinformation. When government censors, it means they can't defend their claims with logic and reason. And that is bad.

 

[1213]

You make it sound like the Socialists aren't paying taxes themselves. Who are these ethereal "others?"

The politicians and other people who live on government support.

 

[1213]

If that would actually work, I'd be all for it, but history has shown us that it clearly doesn't.

For just one example, charities during rough times tend to dry up as people who normally would donate are often fearful of losing their jobs. Deaths from starvation in Appalachia and the Navaho Res. occurred in the late 1950's, so if charity supposedly worked, why did these children die?

I don't know enough about that case, but I think it would be good to also understand, disciples of Jesus are not omnipotent. Only small number of them can't do everything.

No, a disciple of Christ puts God and people first, not $.

If so, why call them disciples of Jesus?

 

[Sand Dancer]

The politicians and other people who live on government support.

I guess if people were unhappy they could vote them out. They seem to be happy though. We can't use our values to project our attitudes onto them. Their values are community-minded, whereas the US's are individual-minded.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Even if it would be just about "to enforce their own policies", it would go against the freedom of speech.

I think this kind of news shows that the government has broken the First Amendment.

White House warning: New Twitter ownership means government could lose control of U.S. media – World Tribune: U.S. Politics and Culture, Geopolitics, Northeast Asia, China, Geostrategy-Direct, International Security, Corporate Watch, Media Watch

Federal government using social-media giants to censor Americans (nypost.com)

What do you think would have happened, if Trump would have done that? I believe he would have been successfully impeached.

Here is the World Tribune article, published by Babylon Bee, a satirical news website:

Government Warns That With Elon Owning Twitter They Will Only Control 97% Of The Media

The New York Post article states:

"The Post has been targeted repeatedly by social media for solid, factual reporting."

This is after making the claim:

"In fact, much science indicates that kids aren’t at risk and aren’t spreaders. Study after study repeatedly shows that children are safer than vaccinated adults and that the masks people actually wear don’t do much good."

without citing any studies to back the claim up. I get it, it's an opinion piece, but really?

And as for Trump:

"A former Twitter employee-turned-whisteblower told the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday the Trump White House urged it remove a 2019 Tweet by celebrity Chrissy Teigen insulting then-President Donald Trump..."

www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/02/08/trump-white-house-pressed-twitter-to-remove-chrissy-teigen-insult-ex-exec-testifies/amp/

So government-pressure on speech that doesn't have to do with misinformation during a pandemic?

The problem here is, government clearly is not good at telling what is really misinformation. Often it seems it is the biggest spreader of misinformation. We can't ever trust that government has the right information. The responsibility should always be one the reader. And reader should always think is there good reason to believe what was said. Instead of censoring, government should explain why its information is correct. That is the correct way against misinformation. When government censors, it means they can't defend their claims with logic and reason. And that is bad.

I get that there should be conversation around things including during a pandemic, but simultaneously when people are dying there needs to be some sort of response by the federal government to mitigate the impact, and when misinformation around some pretty obvious and medically-sound advice such as mask-wearing and vaccines is increasingly impacting the spread of the virus in our age of mass communication, it seems reasonable for the government to request media to follow their own guidelines.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Okay, this is a bit off topic, but for some reason I thought of it when I was reading your post ...

I remember way back when I was eleven and I got my period. Now, I had a great mom, who sat me down and educated me and all that. And also, starting in the fourth and fifth grades (lucky for me because I got my period in 6th grade), we learned about that stuff at school (Gasp! I know!). So anyway. when my mom sat me down to talk about it, she showed me this pamphlet thing her mother had given her back in the 1960's when she got her first period. I'm telling you, this thing was the most useless uninformative "information pamphlet" I've ever seen in my life. The entire thing was set up in a question and answer format. So, it would say like

Q: How do I attach my sanitary pad? [Back then they were big contraption-like things].
A: ASK MOTHER.

Q:What is going on in my body?
A: ASK MOTHER.

Q: How long does this last?
A: ASK MOTHER.

I think you get the idea. What a waste of ink. We got a good laugh at it, but that's about it.

I mean, is this the kind of useless thing people would prefer over comprehensive sex ed?

This reminds me of a girl I taught. She was older than other kids and they were teasing her about having a pamphlet she must have gotten at a clinic. I pulled her out to the hallway and congratulated her on wanting to learn about her body and she should not be ashamed, but the 8 year olds can’t handle that yet so she shouldn’t show them.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Amen, and I think if Jesus was personally here and looking at what the Pubs are trying to do, he would slap them silly-- just kidding.

Or bring out his whip

 

[F1fan]

The election of a frail senior citizen beyond his prime is what emboldened Putin,

The two candidates for president in 2020 were about the same age. That Biden is fit and Trump overweight was not a relevant issue. This right wing assertion that Biden is frail, or mentally challenged, was stomped on pretty hard in the State of the Union speech a few weeks ago. Damn, Biden was on is game. His approval rating is on the rise as Trump's is declining.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...roval-rating-highest-in-almost-a-year-survey/

seems it's the Left who thinks they can do no wrong.

The left has it's job to do for the American citizen, and we see this work born out in policies. They won't nominate a candidate that walks on eggshells around Putin. As we know there was rather suspicious activity between Russia and Trump, and while it didn't bother conservatives it did bother intelligence agencies.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And they should step aside amd defer to those such as educators, child psychologists and experts in the field. Parents do not own their children and it's past time we start recognizing children as individuals who are not bound to their parents wants for them. It's detrimental to the kids, it's detrimental to society.

If parents own their kids then they should go to prison whenever little Johnny wants to commit crimes. They want all of the authority and none of the responsibility.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If parents own their kids then they should go to prison whenever little Johnny wants to commit crimes. They want all of the authority and none of the responsibility.

children are not property in our society.

 

[1213]

...
"A former Twitter employee-turned-whisteblower told the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday the Trump White House urged it remove a 2019 Tweet by celebrity Chrissy Teigen insulting then-President Donald Trump..."...

For me it is difficult to believe that when the media seemed to be insulting Trump all the time, except when he accepted a missile strike in Syria or some place like that.

I get that there should be conversation around things including during a pandemic, but simultaneously when people are dying there needs to be some sort of response by the federal government to mitigate the impact, and when misinformation around some pretty obvious and medically-sound advice such as mask-wearing and vaccines is increasingly impacting the spread of the virus in our age of mass communication, it seems reasonable for the government to request media to follow their own guidelines.

I think it is wrong and against the first amendment for government to make any requests for media.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I suppose we could just close our eyes and pretend it isn't happening.

You seem to have closed your eyes and pretended it is happening. And on some mass scale.
And yet you can't provide reputable sources that demonstrate that. But you believe it anyway.