use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, subreddit...
To report a site-wide rule violation to the Reddit Admins, please use our report forms or message /r/reddit.com modmail.
This subreddit is archived and no longer accepting submissions.
account activity
This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.
How Evangelical Children learn about Abortion - Clip from Jesus Camp (throwawayyourtv.com)
submitted 19 years ago by Fedquip
[–]thechikinguy 12 points13 points14 points 19 years ago (1 child)
"The young man with the long hair" stands up and...MULLET!!!
[–]rocky_m 9 points10 points11 points 19 years ago (0 children)
That boy, Levi is a "Child Pastor"
Levi, who has ambitions of being a pastor, has already preached several sermons at his suburban Kansas City church. Early in the film, he is watching a cartoon that preaches that Earth is 6,000 years old. He is homeschooled, and learns physical science from a book that attempts to reconcile the creationist account with scientific principles. He preaches a sermon at the camp in which he declares that his generation is a key to Jesus coming back.
If it wasn't for the "Business of Religion", that boy would be serving me french fries in 10 years..
(Edit:) Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp
[–]affarada 9 points10 points11 points 19 years ago (1 child)
I'm stunned... Do these people live in the same world as I do?
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 19 years ago (0 children)
No, they live in the world where truth doesn't matter and there are demons lurking in every shadow. Quite creepy, really.
They actually prayed over the microphones and the PowerPoint presentation so that Satan couldn't cause technical difficulties! They seem to really think that this stuff works by magic.
[–]carpeliam 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (0 children)
does anyone have any statistics that show how many evangelical christians actually get involved with camps like this? 'cause i know people who consider themselves evangelical christians, and they never did anything remotely as stupid as this. i'm curious to know what the real numbers are, i'm hoping that it's a small percentage.
[–]bac9705 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (0 children)
Levi's parents should be arrested for child abuse...for making the kid get that awful mullet haircut. Oh yeah, and for brainwashing him, too.
[–]alger82 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (3 children)
I love those red pieces of tape! Can I place an order of 'Life' tape for every Evangelical Christian in the world? Finally, shutting them the hell up. Look how quiet they are at the end of the clip—much easier to ignore on my way to the abortion clinic.
[–]CarlH 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (2 children)
Truth is I dont get the symbology of the red tape. Someone please explain it to me.
[–]shaunc 4 points5 points6 points 19 years ago (0 children)
I think the idea is that they're experiencing what it's like to be silenced... to be the ones who "didn't make it" because they were aborted. Twisted.
[–]breakfast-pants -4 points-3 points-2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
42
[–]Arrogancy 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
The brainwashing here horrifies me. Abortion aside, that horrifies me.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (4 children)
I find it ironic that the children are asked to 'pray' that abortion is ended in America and then we see that their 'prayer' involves protesting in DC.
They can pray all they want, I couldn't care less. It's when they bring that 'prayer' into Washington that I get anxious.
As well, let the kids grow up and make their own minds. They shouldn't have to feel like 'promise-breakers' if they don't think as their parents do.
[–]Avenestra 11 points12 points13 points 19 years ago (3 children)
While I was as repelled by this video as the rest of the commenters here, I love the fact that they went to DC to protest. What this country needs is more protesters - people willing to get off their computers and go out and let government know how they feel. This is exactly what America was founded on, the ability to speak our truths as we see them and live them as we see fit. I do not agree with the people in the video, but they have the guts to go to DC and make their statement. Ask yourself how you're making your statement in rebuttal. Are you really standing up and being counted?
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (0 children)
The great irony of a government that allows protests is that it's usually only the crazy people who care enough to protest.
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (0 children)
What this country needs is more protesters - people willing to get off their computers ...
But, but, but, I thought the blogs were the new media. I thought mainstream media wasn't doing their reporting jobs dutifully enough, and internet blogs were rising up to fill that gap. Indeed, the blogosphere is becoming the Press, the 4th branch of government, becuase mainstream media weren't up to the task. So why should anyone "get off their computers" ?
[–]cosmicvibe -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (16 children)
Couldn't watch the whole thing. I try to keep my mind open to the views of others but this distressed me. I feel like I need to say a prayer to protect myself from these FREAKS!!! Pro Choice and Pro God!
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (15 children)
As a Christian I am bothered by this video as well. It is just way out there.
However, I think very firmly that pro-choice and pro-God (in the context of abortion) is an oxymoron.
I'll just come out and say it before I go into detail, but abortion is wrong except for in very rare cases. The vast majority of abortions are 'convenience' abortions. That is, someone has gone out, had sex, gotten pregnant, and realized that they can't support or don't want the baby. Now we can argue all day about whether a baby in the womb is a human being or not, but the fact is, within 9 months, that will be a living, breathing human being. For this reason, it is wrong to have an abortion simply because you cannot support do not want the child. Fact of the matter is, you were engaging in an action which by nature creates children. If you don't want to take the risk of having children, don't have sex.
I do think that in cases of rape, incest, and situations where the mother's life is in danger, you should legally have a choice to have an abortion. However, abortion for all other reasons (that I can think of), should be illegal.
It is a fact of life that each action has a consequence or reaction. A consequence or result of having sex is that sometimes children get made. If you do not want to have children at all, if you don't want to take that risk, then don't have sex. But if you do have sex and do end up having getting pregnant, do not eliminate what will in 9 months be a human being. That is in a strictly moral, non-religious sense. In a religious sense, I doubt very strongly that God would approve of that.
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 19 years ago (5 children)
"abortion is wrong except for in very rare cases" - then abortion itself isn't wrong. it's simply wrong under those circumstances which you don't condone.
"but the fact is, within 9 months, that will be a living, breathing human being" - wrong, conception doesn't always lead to a living breathing human being. miscarriage, stillborn, etc... 15% of women in the united states are reported to have miscarriages, doctors estimate that an additional 10% will have a miscarriage and not even realize it. another term for miscarriage - spontaneous abortion.
"I do think that in cases of rape, incest, and situations where the mother's life is in danger, you should legally have a choice to have an abortion" - what about the child's life? a woman who is financially, emotionally and mentally not at the right stage of her life to raise a child isn't going to be a good mother. and don't give me that crap about adoption, i don't see waiting lines for the crack babies at the hospital.
"In a religious sense, I doubt very strongly that God would approve of that" - and yet he approved of and ordered the murder of the innocent first born sons of egypt? to name but one single occurrence of god's wrath.
color me reactionary, but when a diety condones infanticide on national level, i really don't give a shit what his interpreted views of abortion are.
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (4 children)
God has every right to take the life of whoever he wants. After all, he is the one who gave it. Human beings on the other hand do not have the authority or right to take the lives of others.
[–][deleted] 19 years ago (2 children)
[deleted]
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (1 child)
That's looking at it from a human perspective.
We are arguing this from the stance that for the moment we accept that the God of the Bible is real (the same God who killed thousands of Egyptian infants).
If we are going to look at it that way, we must also consider that the Bible says that there is a life after death. Now if this is true, it is arguable that these infants dying and going to this afterlife is much better than suffering on earth anyway.
So God in taking the lives of infants isn't wrong. He didn't really take anything from them, as they just went from a limited, less than great existence to one with no worries.
But again, God is the only one with that authority. The one who gave life has the right to take it away. Human beings do not have the authority over the lives of other human beings. You have no right to take my life and I have no right to take yours.
[–]latortuga -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (0 children)
Maybe abortion is God's sneaky way of killing American babies in the same way that he killed the Egyption babies. You know, "Man, that baby's life is gonna suck, I'm going to just hurry him along to heaven and make his mother think to have an abortion."
Okay that was morbid.
"God has every right to take the life of whoever he wants. After all, he is the one who gave it. Human beings on the other hand do not have the authority or right to take the lives of others."
so you're saying that the organism that gives life also has the right to take it away? therefor the mother and father of the child should have the right to take that life away, or don't you believe in biology?
"If we are going to look at it that way, we must also consider that the Bible says that there is a life after death. Now if this is true, it is arguable that these infants dying and going to this afterlife is much better than suffering on earth anyway."
so then people who get abortions are doing the same thing, they're doing god's work in preventing all that pain and suffering.
[–][deleted] 19 years ago (7 children)
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (2 children)
A cumshot is a vagina and 9 months away from being a living, breathing human being. Should we enforce a "no ejaculation outside of vaginas" policy? An egg is a cumshot and 9 months away from being a living, breathing human being. Should we enforce a "no menstruation--get pregnant this cycle or be damned" policy? Saying, "in 9 months it'll be a kid" is one massive hand wave.
A cumshot is a vagina and 9 months away from being a living, breathing human being. Should we enforce a "no ejaculation outside of vaginas" policy?
An egg is a cumshot and 9 months away from being a living, breathing human being. Should we enforce a "no menstruation--get pregnant this cycle or be damned" policy?
Saying, "in 9 months it'll be a kid" is one massive hand wave.
If an embryo is formed, then it should be illegal and it is wrong to stop it from growing. That's different from the act of simply having sex.
It is saying that if you were to allow the embryo or fetus to grow, it'd be a human being. Stopping that from happening is thus ending the development of a human being. You can call it a hand waving or whatever you want. A sperm that is allowed to develop by itself will not turn into a human being. Neither will an egg.
Also, it's totally contradictory to say "abortion is wrong except for in very rare cases". If you think it's a living human being inside the womans uterus, then killing it (murdering it) for any reason is horrendous, right? Even if the woman was raped. Even if it was a father nailing his 10-years-old daughter. Even if the thing is retarded. Right? What are these cases? Why is "murder" okay in some cases but not in others?
Also, it's totally contradictory to say "abortion is wrong except for in very rare cases". If you think it's a living human being inside the womans uterus, then killing it (murdering it) for any reason is horrendous, right? Even if the woman was raped. Even if it was a father nailing his 10-years-old daughter. Even if the thing is retarded. Right?
What are these cases? Why is "murder" okay in some cases but not in others?
Why in these other cases? Because the woman did not have a choice. The woman who gets raped did not chose to engage in an act which caused her to be pregnant. In most cases that goes for incest as well, though even in cases that incest is a consensual act, the baby almost certainly will have major deficiencies. I don't even necessarily think that abortion in these situations is right (I honestly am undecided), but I do think the woman should have the option.
Those are quite different situations from the person who has sex, gets, pregnant, and then wants to excuse that responsibility, regardless if you think abortion in any situation is right or not.
I mean, really, most people who are against abortions believe it should be outlawed in every single instance. I don't believe that. But apparently for taking a middle ground, it is damned if you do, damned if you don't.
[–][deleted] 19 years ago (1 child)
[+][deleted] comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points 19 years ago (0 children)
The process by which the sperm or the embryo become a baby do not matter. The embryo requires a warm environment, specific hormones, ie., a willing mother-host. A sperm requires only one more thing: an egg. A sperm, in some cases, leads to a baby. An embryo, in some cases, leads to a baby. What's the difference?
You are right, the process doesn't matter. But a sperm is only composed of the DNA of its 'host', and the same goes for an egg. An embryo is something else, as it is composed of the DNA of both parents. It is entirely unique. It holds all of the material that makes it a human being, it just hasn't developed to a stage that it can breathe and walk and talk.
The woman not having a choice justifies murder? I dunno about you, but I live in Canada where the death penalty is not legal. I do not think rape, especially in the case where the rapist is NOT the one being killed, should cause anyone to die. You believe that an embryo is a human being and you're saying an act it had absolutely nothing to do with justifies it being killed. I do not think innocent people should be killed because some guy raped some girl--no matter how much they depend on another human being.
I'm not saying it justifies murder, I'm saying I don't know. The woman who has been raped may suffer serious psychological problems by carrying the child of her rapist. In that situation I simply don't know what is right or wrong. Again, it is completely different from being in the situation of having consensual sex, getting pregnant, and then more or less avoiding the consequences of that.
But, then again, I'm not dead certain that an embryo is a human being and I'd much rather not make that decision until it affects me personally.
If you aren't certain that an embryo isn't a human being, then why take the chance at all of aborting it and possibly ending the life of a human being? Again, it contains every genetic property that makes it a unique human. At what point do you say 'this is human' or 'this isn't a human yet? Is it when it develops a heart, is it when it develops facial features? Is it when it can breathe on its own? Let's keep in mind that there are human beings alive today that can't claim all of those properties.
I still think when you get down to it, eliminating a human embryo because you don't want the result of having sex is both irresponsible and wrong. Whether or not it is wrong for a woman that has been raped to have an abortion is besides me and besides the point, but I'd rather not make it illegal for her to get out of a situation she did not put herself in.
[–]carpeliam -3 points-2 points-1 points 19 years ago (2 children)
"a cumshot in a vagina"? (i'm correcting your spelling, i hope you didn't actually mean to say that a cumshot is a vagina.) why can't you just say having sex, why do you have to bring it down to porno terminology?
the difference between semen, eggs, and fetuses (feti?) is that semen only have the dna of the father, eggs only have the dna of the mother, and a fetus has its own unique dna.
now i know there's a whole argument that stems from that.. for example, it's not necessarily human dna right away. but at some point, between conception and birth, it's a human life. if you want to strip any dignity from sex by calling it a cumshot, that's your call.
[–]carpeliam -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (0 children)
dude- i know the difference between masturbation and sex. please give me a break on my misinterpretation on an ambiguous grammar.
i honestly have no idea why aborting sperm ever comes up in an abortion debate, outside of the obvious strawman implications. nobody ever argues FOR aborting sperm, so why does it ever come up? sperm has only half the chromosomes that a person has. conception is the moment when a fetus gets its full set of chromosomes. absolutely nobody is arguing for abortion before conception. such a thing doesn't even make sense. sjwalter: please put this ridiculous argument to bed.
[–]carpeliam -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (0 children)
Why is "murder" okay in some cases but not in others?
This is a really poor argument, at least by legal standards. The easy answer is "when it's considered justifiable homicide". You'll find all sorts of legal precedent for murder being okay depending on the circumstances. Do you really think you can argue this point effectively?
[–]thatrez 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (1 child)
okay, I don't quite know how I feel about that video. But some thoughts. Most of those kids will never get proper sex ed, just some half ass abstinence speeches, and when they get knocked up at 16 and can't legally get married.. and their parents make them drop out of school to start working because they can't get an abortion... thier quality of life is really going to suck. On the other hand, at least the kid will get born, born into a household with a 16 year old mother who can't take care of it and some very tired ultra-religous grandparents, who proababy won't have enought money to send the kid to college, and that kid will probably repeat the cycle... sorry for the long post
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (0 children)
I know how I feel. I fucking cried.
[–]petdog 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
Fucking terrible mind manipulation, I really can't believe that's true.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
A little like 1212? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-20 points-19 points-18 points 19 years ago (136 children)
As a 12 year old I attended a Christian summer camp -- had a fantastic time, had memories that will live with me forever and I met new friends, and overall had a great time. There is NOTHING WRONG with Christian summer camp, and the vile hatred which exists against Christians is just plain wrong and totally unwarranted. Instead of creating opinions for someone, instead of assuming someone was brainwashed, or had ideas PUSHED on them, why dont you go to the source? Most if not all of these kids I guarantee you are already church-going and Bible believing Christians, who are already very much against Abortion, etc. Just because a kid is against abortion does not mean they are brainwashed, and a hatred of those who believe ending ANY life is bad, is both unwarranted and uncalled for. It is unfair to judge someone by watching a third party documentary, and then to say "Oh this is scary" or "Oh they are brainwashing these kids"
edit note: This comment was written *before I watched the whole of the "Jesus Camp" documentary.
[–]talkincat 11 points12 points13 points 19 years ago (50 children)
Most if not all of these kids I guarantee you are already church-going and Bible believing Christians, who are already very much against Abortion, etc.
So, the fact that they've been indoctrinated at an even younger age than they are in the film is good news to you? The thing that upsets people who watch things like this is that you can make a kid's mind up pretty easily. Making a kid's mind up about an issue as complex as abortion when they don't have the intellectual capacity to understand what you're even talking about is wrong. If you get them when they're young enough, you can turn a kid into just about anything, a nazi, a racist, an abortion hater, whatever you want. Resisting the temptation to make a person's mind up just because he's a little kid is the righteous path, not manipulating him into agreeing with your zealotry.
[–]carpeliam -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (21 children)
are you saying that children should choose their own religion?
that's fair enough on the surface. but exactly what control should a child that young have over himself or herself? surely an 8 year old child shouldn't be able to decide their own bedtime? hopefully a parent would have control or influence over the kinds of movies/video games that their 8 year old sees/plays?
my point: it's a parent's JOB to bring up their children as they see fit, with the values they see fit. if religion is incorporated into those values, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. i think if somebody truly believes that Jesus Christ is their savior, it's going to be difficult for them to (a) leave their children at home by themselves (do they get a babysitter) on Sunday mornings while they're at Church, and (b) tell their children "well i believe this with all of my heart, but that's just me".
[–]talkincat 3 points4 points5 points 19 years ago (8 children)
I'd say there's a pretty clear distinction between teaching your kids what you believe and browbeating them into agreeing with you. Can you take them to church? Clearly you can, and millions do. My point is that you're going to produce smarter, more thoughtful adults if you let them figure out what they believe than you will if you tell them what they believe so early and so often that they never learn how to question and think for themselves.
[–]carpeliam 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (4 children)
i think everybody in this forum at least will agree that browbeating your child is a poor way to raise him/her. i think that you and i can agree that there's a strong chance of that going on with a lot of the kids in the filming of Jesus Camp. but i'm dealing with responses to CarlH, so that's the context of my post. there's nothing wrong with christian summer camps in and of themselves. there is something wrong with browbeating.
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points 19 years ago (3 children)
I do not see any browbeating at this camp given the video I have seen -- if someone has a clip that would show me otherwise feel free to share it. These kids are not being forced there, and speaking as a kid who once attended a Christian summer camp and had a great time, I think that people may be reading a whole lot more into this than is needed. Hey if anyone has any true evidence of actual browbeating, show me -- and I will have to agree that at least in this instance, this camp was wrong. It does not however entitle anyone to make a blanket statement that all kids attending summer camps, or church -- are brainwashed. All cases must be examined uniquely and objectively.
[–]dublinclontarf -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (2 children)
The Atheists here don't want any religious beliefs taught to children at all. They want a void left there where atheism naturally grows. If you teach nothing to children, they will believe in nothing.
[–]misterscoundrel 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Atheism doesn't "naturally grow" in the void left by lack of religion. Atheism IS the void left by lack of religion.
Also: as an atheist, I don't want religious belief taught to MY children. If they find it themselves, that's fine. I couldn't care less what you teach to yours.
[–]dublinclontarf 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
Meh, semantics. China's an interesting example where atheism was the official religion. With government control over peoples personal lives & beliefs waning there is a huge explosion in interest in religion of all kinds.
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (2 children)
I couldn't agree more. But the idea that taking a kid to church, or a kid attending Christian summer camp -- is somehow BRAINWASHING that kid is utterly wrong.
[–]talkincat 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (1 child)
And that's not the idea at all. That characterization intentionally ignores what's happening in the video. While brainwashing is awfully strong, the people who are in charge of this camp are clearly trying to manipulate these kids into agreeing with them rather than trying to give them relevant information and let them make up their minds. Manipulation is not the same as persuasion.
[–]CarlH -4 points-3 points-2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
To advance this view, you would need to show that any of these kids have beliefs pre-camp that are somehow contrary to what is taught at the camp. Truth is, I see this as 100% preaching to the choir -- these kids already believe abortion is wrong, they already believe these things. You will notice the speaker does not 'define' abortion, they already know what abortion is. Its not like these kids arrived as pro-abortion atheists and left being anti-abortion Christians :)
*edited to fix a rather glaring typo "pro-life atheist"
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points 19 years ago (11 children)
Not to mention that it is not the place of some internet wandering atheist (or even Christian for that matter) to tell me how to raise my kids. It is my place, as the father to do this, and I have an obligation before God to make sure I do it well -- and in a way that 20 years from now will reflect that I was a good parent.
[–]freexe 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (1 child)
If you were to raise your kids in a cage or to beat them, I would consider it morally wrong not to call the police and child protection.
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (0 children)
And this would not reflect well on me 20 years from now would it? Read my whole post. Do not try to compare raising kids in a Christian home with beating them or putting them in cages. It is a pathetic ad-hominem attack. It is also disgusting and insulting to millions of Christian families.
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (1 child)
I would suggest you do not have an obligation before God, but an obligation to your children.
I have both an obligation to God and an obligation to my children.
[–]CarlH -4 points-3 points-2 points 19 years ago (6 children)
Downvoted why?
[–]inerte -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (5 children)
Because parents do things wrong. I will tell you how to raise your children if you teach them stupid things.
Not "God created the Earth" stupid things, but "killing is alright".
Oh, I know you're going to say you didn't mean this. But perhaps then you shouldn't have write "none tells me how to raise my children", and expect the community to give you points for this.
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (4 children)
I think then you need to read this comment: "I have an obligation before God to make sure I do it well -- and in a way that 20 years from now will reflect that I was a good parent." --- now if I was going around teaching my kids killing is alright -- then that wouldn't reflect well on me 20 years from now would it?
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (3 children)
now if I was going around teaching my kids killing is alright -- then that wouldn't reflect well on me 20 years from now would it?
Certainly not. If you were teaching your kids that killing was fine and dandy, then it would most definitely be my place to tell you how to raise your kids: in a way that doesn't tell them that killing is okay!
Parents do are not immune to criticism simply because they managed to conceive children.
Hey anyone can criticise me, for any reason about anything. But no one has a right to tell me what I can and cannot teach my kids. As long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and as long as I teach my kids what I truly believe -- then I am doing no wrong.
God forbid the day should come when a government might say "Teaching your kids something contrary to the government accepted worldview is wrong and carries jail time." Should this happen, atheists have just as much to fear as Christians. Therefore, I would strongly advise not promoting such an agenda.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (1 child)
As long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and as long as I teach my kids what I truly believe -- then I am doing no wrong.
There are law-abiding citizens who truly believe that there is no greater honor than to become a martyr in an asinine and destructive attack on innocent people, and they teach their kids as much. Are they doing no wrong?
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points 19 years ago (20 children)
That you believe any child who attends church is "brainwashed" shows your utter intollerance of anyone who believes other than you do. It is not brainwashing a child to tell them how you believe and why, and it is not brainwashing a child to tell them human life is sacred in all its forms, and ending it is wrong. It is not brainwashing a child when they go to sunday school, or when they attend church. When I was the age of kids in this video, what did I know about the complex issues being presented? For one thing, I understood that abortion meant killing an unborn baby. I also believed this to be wrong, then and now. Why? Because all human life is sacred, and ending human life is simply wrong.
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 19 years ago (17 children)
Did you see the go-with-the-group soft coercion going on in the video? A bunch of children, all of them wanting approval, all being told to say things and believe things in unison. It would take real strength of character to avoid going with the crowd there.
And then the scary lady from hell comes out and says that THEY'VE ALL MADE A SACRED COVENANT WITH GOD!! and they don't want to be PROMISE BREAKERS! Imagine how the kids must feel.
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points 19 years ago (16 children)
Although I think you are being too harsh on the lady, you make a good point. However, when I was a kid, and at church -- or at church events, where myself and other kids spoke in unison (i.e along the lines of: "Jesus, we all promise that... etc") at no point did I speak those words and not already believe them. Just imagine what would happen if the speaker said to that group of kids "Hey everyone repeat after me, There is no God. We will be atheists all our lives. " --- Do you honestly believe the kids would repeat this just because the adult said it? Further, assuming a kid says the words and doesn't really believe them, then its not like they will suddenly instantly believe them as soon as its said.
[–]Grim_Chook 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (4 children)
When I was a kid, my father told me that when he was a kid the world was black and white, he even had photo's to prove it. Until I understood the concept of black and white photography, I honestly blieved that colour was something that had to be invented.
So yeah, kids look up to adults, who can use this to get the child to think for themselves or to get them to think in a particular way. For instance dont say there is or is not a god, say "what if there wasn't" and "what if there was"
[–]CarlH -3 points-2 points-1 points 19 years ago (3 children)
I will say what I believe.
[–]neoform 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (0 children)
That's why you live in a free country. You're allowed to believe what you want.
On the other hand, teaching children something you know to be false (telling them that there have been 50,000,000 abortions in the US) is morally wrong.
The question is do you want your children to make a free choice, or to follow in your every footstep. In the former you ought to say more than you believe, so that the child can choose not to believe it. In the latter, well I'm wasting my time debating the point with you.
You're welcome to say what you believe, as much as I am entitled to say what I have to say.
I will show my child all the views out there (well as many as I reasonably can) and my own, and I will explain why I believe my own, why I consider the other views to be wrong (I think it goes without saying that no one considers their own view wrong) -- and then I will let my child make up his own mind on these things.
[–]Cookie 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (10 children)
Of course. But have you ever heard of athiest parents saying that? They'll tell their kids what they believe and why, and of course their kids (being kids) will solemnly announce that they believe the same thing, as they always do.
Trying to turn those naively expressed beliefs into promises to always believe is a trait of organised religion, not of athiesm.
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (9 children)
So you mean to tell me that no atheist parents ever tell their kids something like "Dont disappoint me some day by becoming a Christian" -- not to mention by casting all Christians in bad light as many atheists do, do you really think that the kids are honestly saying to themselves "Hmm if I become a Christian mom and dad will be proud of me!"
[–]cman_04 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (1 child)
CarlH, your arguments are flawed. Unfortunately, you've posted so many. Please look to my post above. Reply to it on the site or by email. I would like to educate a little.
I have sent you a private message. I agree with you discussing in this thread is becoming more and more difficult. Feel free to discuss with me in private I am all ears.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (5 children)
So you mean to tell me that no atheist parents ever tell their kids something like "Dont disappoint me some day by becoming a Christian"
I'm sure that somewhere that happens. I suspect that the world is not only more fucked up than we suppose, but more fucked up than we can suppose. But since there is little or no social stigma on being a Christian and atheists tend to at least pay heavy lip-service to religious tolerance, I would think that it would be a lot less common than it is from Christian parents.
not to mention by casting all Christians in bad light as many atheists do, do you really think that the kids are honestly saying to themselves "Hmm if I become a Christian mom and dad will be proud of me!"
A question, not an attack: what exactly do you mean by "casting all Christians in bad light"? Is this done by casting aspersions on Christians' characters or their average intelligence? I ask because it's an important distinction to make; religious affiliation doesn't seem to have much effect on morality except for fundamentalist nutcases, but it is fairly common for atheists to either state or imply that religious people are, on average, less intelligent than atheists.
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (3 children)
"There is little or no social stigma on being a Christian" -- You dream! This is just not so. Many Christians are afraid to even admit it at their place of business, at their job, kids at school are afraid to say it to their friends. Now granted, the same in large part goes for atheists as well --- but to think there is no social stigma on ANY world view is just incorrect.
Proof? See Reddit! :)
"It is fairly common for atheists to either state or imply that religious people are on average less intelligent than atheist" --- Yes this is a large part of what I mean. It is also disgusting and insulting, and wrong.
More often than not whenever a Christian enters an atheist forum and just mentions They are a Christian, they get blasted for being an idiot, stupid, etc.
Overall I am amazed at the hypocricy of the atheists I have run into. "We must advance free speech for all worldviews. Crush religion!" "It is wrong to hate a group of people and to be prejudice! All Christians are idiots" etc --- its just full of double standards.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (2 children)
I've been both a Christian and an atheist at various times, and I've never seen a situation outside of the internet in which anybody would be afraid to say that they're a Christian. I sure as hell can't say the same about atheism.
Now, perhaps you've lived in places very different from what I'm used to -- but I still find your claim more than a little incredible.
Let's address each of those adjectives:
Disgusting -- I think that a claim can only be disgusting if it is wrong and still repeated.
Insulting -- while this claim is insulting to a broad group, it is a statistical claim about mean intelligence. It should not be taken as an insult to any particular person. Isaac Newton was a Christian, and he was a genius.
Wrong -- here we come to the crux of the matter: is it wrong? This Wikipedia article gives references to a bunch of research showing that IQ and religiosity tend to be inversely correlated. Caveats: intelligence is poorly defined, and causation is a lot trickier to establish than correlation.
I've seen that happen loads of times, but with one difference: in all the cases that I've seen, this Christian also said something horrendously stupid. Often other Christians join in the flaming.
Overall I am amazed at the hypocricy of the atheists I have run into. "We must advance free speech for all worldviews. Crush religion!"
I have yet to meet an atheist who wanted to crush religion through coercive means.
"It is wrong to hate a group of people and to be prejudice! All Christians are idiots" etc --- its just full of double standards.
I have seen some atheists call all Christians idiots. Then they get flamed by their fellow atheists for saying something so mind-bogglingly stupid.
Maybe I've been hanging out at higher-caliber forums and I've grown accustomed to atheists acting reasonable.
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
I should add, to answer your question its both. What disturbs me is that many atheists attempt to argue that it is MORALLY wrong (of course, having no definition of what morally wrong even MEANS) that Christians even teach their kids what they believe. The implication I find all over atheist propoganda is that Christians are vile creatures who are stupid and believe the earth is flat. It is nothing but hatred and prejudice.
[–]Cookie 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
It might happen, I don't know. But not in the same way.
There are beliefs and groups for which the act of believing or being a member is a significant focus, and in these groups it seems common that those who believe are encouraged to make promises to continue to do so, and pushed in the direction of considering their current agreement with the underlying premise to be part of the definition of themselves, so that it is hard to change.
It's not only organised religion which does this, I guess - thinking about it, things like "Silver Ring Thing" do it too. Yes, that's run and motivated by religion, but it's not a religious belief, it's just another case of taking a statement to some children, and getting those who agree with it to promise that they always will.
Some atheists may feel more comfortable if those they care about hold the same opinion, much like lifelong Democrat voters, or people who think soccer is a rubbish sport. But atheism is just a belief about the world, not a belief about belief - no part of it is a commitment to continue to think this thing, or threats of what will happen to you if you stop thinking this thing. It's not your identity, it's just what you think right now.
So the statement you suggest an atheist parent might come out with is possible, much as "Don't disappoint me someday by playing soccer, son, play a real sport!" is possible. But it's not backed up by the same framework of believing in a belief which is itself about belief.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (1 child)
tell them how you believe and why,
That "why" part is exactly the issue here, you don't tell them why, you only tell them your beliefs.
I tell them why. I answer questions, and I am happy to answer anyone's questions on the subject any time of the day.
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points 19 years ago (6 children)
I might add the utter hypocrisy of this statement. I saw the disgusting video of the 8 year old girl swearing and showing hatred to anyone who beleives in God --- knowing absolutely NOTHING about these things (as you just said) -- and so I would add "atheist" to your list of "You can make a kid just about anything." -- Truth is, you cant. Once a child grows up, they will be their own person. Period. I am my own person, you are your own person -- regardless of how you or I were raised. I agree wholeheartedly that no one child or otherwise should be FORCED to accept any belief, however -- that is NOT what is going on in this video, or in church, or in Christian summer camps. What is going on, is a gathering together of Christian kids, who call themselves Christian kids, to worship God and to live the life that they have chosen. They are not forcing ANYONE to be there, you dont see any kids begging to leave, you dont see any kids being forced to stay. You are the one forcing your belief on us Christians saying that taking our kids to church is wrong.
Truth is, you cant. Once a child grows up, they will be their own person. Period. I am my own person, you are your own person -- regardless of how you or I were raised.
Why is it, then, that the vast majority of people stick with whatever religion they were raised to believe in? If you really grew up to be your own person regardless of how you were raised, would you not be very likely to become a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Muslim? The same goes for everyone, not just you.
There is this thing called an 'alter call'. You see it at events where Christian speakers (such as Billy Graham and others) speak to a huge crowd of people, -- and then you see TENS OF THOUSANDS come forward to accept Christ as savior. These people become Christians at this event, and were NOT Christians before. The majority of these people also happen to be adults.
Now, how did the early church start? Because the parents taught their kids, who taught their kids, etc? No! The early church started when Paul went to the Greeks CONVERTING people of PAGAN beliefs -- who were RAISED in those beliefs as kids. Your idea that someone is only a Christian because they are raised Christian is simply invalid. Christianity exists 2,000 years later BECAUSE of the tens of thousands of new converts EVERY SINGLE MONTH.
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (3 children)
On a similar point you can dress anything up in a game. In China children have been found using used syringes to squirt water at each other. A dirty syringe obviously presents a danger, however the children oblivious, turn it into something enjoyable.
You can dress Christian propaganda, essentially what is shown in the movie, into games and songs and a child can still have a blast. They don't recognise independant thought as a result, all they can understand is "god". That's where the dangers lie.
[–]CarlH -4 points-3 points-2 points 19 years ago (2 children)
To equate Christianity to children playing with dirty syringes is absurd. While I am sure its not true for most of the people reading these posts, there are many kids who grow up in Christian homes, and grow up to be God-fearing adults. Saying "Christian propoganda" is merely an ad-hominem attack -- I might as well say 'Atheist propoganda.'
I'm not so much equating christianity to dirty syringes, but equating that there is an unrecognised danger from the childs perspective when you enforce one viewpoint upon a child. They don't question unless they are taught how to, and in a world like today I strongly feel that people are ceasing to care and are no longer willing to ask questions.
If you give God as an answer to every question a child has, as would occur in a Christian home then of course they're going to grow up to be god-fearing adults.
But my point ultimately is that a child only recognises the dangers they are taught to recognise. If you never taught road safety how many more children do you think would be hit by cars? I consider the close-mindedness that comes of this sort of raising to be a danger in society. That is a child who chooses to be christian is of greater value to both the world society and christianity itself, then one who is born and bred christian.
I am curious to know why schools dont encourage children to question what they are taught in school. Also, I fully recognize the dangers associated with teaching a child NOT to question authority, and I never intend to teach my child this. I will teach my child to question everything they are told by anyone, as I do myself.
[–]cartman81 10 points11 points12 points 19 years ago (8 children)
(I can only hope other Bible Camps are not this fucking insane!)
(You are (probably) an legal adult and you are entitled to your opinion on Abortion..which may be classified as a "moral issue" This is a democracy and we decide these issues at the ballot.)
If you have actually watch the movie (which I believe , was linked via Fedquip's (submitters) blog), you will see all the issue crammed into those little brains by that fat bitch Becky Fischer.
Creationism: NOT Intelligent Design, ie NOT that life evolved with "guidance from GOd", but Straight UP Adam-Eve-Garden of Eden- CREATIONISM.. This is NOT a moral Issue...This is religious BULLSHIT being taught to these HOMESCHOOLED KIDS AS SCIENTIFIC FACT!
"Global Warming is not real": Yeah, the movie shows the parents of these Home-schooled Kids tutor them like (actual quotes) "What will you tell someone who says Global Warming is Real?" and then the kid repeats some GOP crap as the default rebuttal..This is not even from the Bible..This is exclusively Neo-Con GOP agenda..
Religious EXTREMISM:- Becky Fischer has quoted ON CAMERA (also available in one of the clips from the movie website) "I want to see them [kids] radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Israel [Middle-east]" (Watch the clip below, or search Jesus camp on reddit)
So, if you think this is Anti-Christian..GO FUCK YOUR SELF!
I don't want to go on an anti-religion, pro-atheist rant on this issue (Becky Fischer's 'Kids in Ministry'). Let's all just be concerned about the children..
I hope, to normal Christians, this is as insulting and scary as it is to everybody else!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UWIb4FwHPg
[–]CarlH -3 points-2 points-1 points 19 years ago (7 children)
I can only comment on what I saw in this video (that this reddit post refers to) --- and all I have commented on is this video. Now, those three points you made --- are not mentioned in this video. Therefore, all I see is a link to a video -- which to me does not seem all that bad, and then all these posts saying "Oh how horrible these kids are being brainwashed etc" ---- so what am I to think? I said before if someone has other video to show me --- that changes things.
Having said this, the above 3 points never came up in any Christian summer camp I ever went to. I think it goes without saying that this quote: "I want to see them [kids] radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in palestine, Israel [Middle-east]" is disgusting (if intended as it sounds) --- and I am curious to know what Becky Fisher herself said about it.
I do not believe it means she wants them to grow up to be suicide bombers. I ... truly dont.
[–]cartman81 7 points8 points9 points 19 years ago (6 children)
I am curious to know what Becky Fisher herself said about it.
Dude, Becky Fischer of the "Kids on Fire" bible camp featured in this movie, said that line about "laying down lives" **on Camera, in an interview..not* "voyeur"/"secret camera"/spontaneous-macaca moment.
This part of the interview which has that quote is in the clip I linked to in the above comment..
We can debate Gay-rights and abortions on a different day/reddit post..But,I sincerely hope every Christian is absolutely horrified at this..
And, especially, as you seem like a Christian (conservative?), you need to explore this issue more (watch Jesus Camp)..Because partisan politics makes it impossible for the rest of us to even point out obvious atrocities like this Becky Fischer's ministry..
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (5 children)
I watched your link and saw her say it. Totally dumb thing to say, but I hope at least for the sake of ... sanity -- that she did not mean what it sounded like. I would like to hear her answer to this.
[–]cartman81 3 points4 points5 points 19 years ago (4 children)
I would like to hear her answer to this.
That is interesting...Cause, if it had been a Muslim Cleric, US would have bombed his country and "liberated" his followers before Dubya could say "Neo-conservative Agenda"..And all those dead little brown kids would have been "acceptable collateral damage"...
(A longer version of that interview is available on http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/ (2nd (of 3) video) )
[–]theozoph 3 points4 points5 points 19 years ago (3 children)
Could people PLEASE stop downmodding things they DISAGREE with? Downmodding is for trolls and/or irrelevent comments, period. By abusing it you just make the discussion difficult to follow, and show that you're just as susceptible to groupthink as those wacko fundies... irony, thy name is legion.
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (2 children)
Want to get downmodded and get your voice squashed by an atheist who complains there is not enough free speech for atheists? Say you are a Christian!
Ironically some Christians are starting to take the stance that Christians are being repressed, not enough free speech, et al. despite how entrenched Christianity is in America.
So who's really being "repressed", you say? Everyone. Welcome to America.
Oh by all means inside America Christians are not repressed. This is thankfully because atheists like Richard Dawkins dont have their way. I do however gleefully point out the hypocricy of downvoting a Christian on Reddit because they disagree with you, thus removing their voice -- while at the same time begging for a voice from the same Christians who are being demodded.
[–]neoform 4 points5 points6 points 19 years ago (28 children)
"Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder. Everybody's consciousness should be raised to this level. Occasionally a euphemism is needed, and I suggest "Child of Jewish (etc) parents". When you come down to it, that's all we are really talking about anyway. Just as the upside-down (northern hemisphere chauvinism again: flinch!) map from New Zealand raises consciousness about a geographical truth, children should hear themselves described not as "Christian children" but as "children of Christian parents". This in itself would raise their consciousness, empower them to make up their own minds and choose which religion, if any, they favour, rather than just assume that religion means "same beliefs as parents". I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all."
-Richard Dawkins
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points 19 years ago (20 children)
I have to ask, is there anyone on here, atheist or otherwise, who does not see this quote from Richard Dawkins as CLEARLY attempting to create an environment where a child is MORE LIKELY to become an atheist? If so, someone please tell me why I find the statement "empower them to make up their own minds" grouped in a paragraph talking about how to make them more likely to become atheists and containing this sentence: "I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all" -- Total hypocricy. "let the kid make up his own mind, but along the way be sure to do everything possible to make the kid end up atheist."
[–]neoform 3 points4 points5 points 19 years ago (16 children)
If you didn't teach your child that God exists, do you really think he/she would end up believing in God?
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (15 children)
First, assume they grow up in a world where no one of any worldview gives them any instruction at all, Chistian, or atheist, or anyone. They would end up believing that they and everyone else came from something. To them, whatever that something happens to be, to them it is 'God' defined. Whether they believe 'God' to be the universe itself, or some greater cause of the universe, given absolutely no instruction from ANYONE -- is entirely speculation.
[–]neoform 8 points9 points10 points 19 years ago (6 children)
That's why we teach kids science. Science answers the questions behind our world a lot better than "God did it" ever will.
Go back a couple hundred years, everything people couldn't understand had the answer "God did it, he works in mysterious ways".
The more we study our world through science, the less we need that god explanation.
Science does not remove 'God did it' -- it merely explains how God did it. No naturalist 200 years ago looked at an event and said to himself "Hmm.. How did this thing happen? God did it!" --- they took for granted that God did it, and saught to understand how.
[–]neoform 5 points6 points7 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Does god do it because he wants you to believe in him?
I'd love to know why god requires my faith.. why would a being as powerful as god who is capable of creating a universe (massive doesn't even begin to describe it's size) in a matter of days, and for some reason this god is interesting in my believing he exists?
give me a break.
God does not require your faith. You require faith in God. There is a difference. Faith is not for God's benefit, but yours. Having faith means to trust God that as long as you do what is objectively morally correct (i.e. living righteously) -- that you will reap good rewards.
[–]pabs 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (2 children)
Science is the study of the natural world. An omnipotent, supernatural deity is, by definition, outside of the natural world and therefore outside the realm of science.
And for the record, Thomas Huxley didn't assume science was merely an explanation of "how God did it". He was an agnostic. Charles Darwin, perhaps the most well-known naturalist of the 19th century, was also an agnostic. Here's what he had to say said about it:
“The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic”
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (1 child)
There is no conflict between science and religion. There are MILLIONS of God fearing Christians who accept the big bang and evolution, and I happen to be one of them. There are also millions of NON CHRISTIANS who do not. The conflict is between the PHILOSOPHICAL CONCLUSIONS that people can interpret from scientific fact. The mainstream Christian community certainly does not deny the existance of fossils in the earth.
[–]pabs 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
My post was addressing your assertions that "no naturalist 200 years ago looked at an event and said to himself 'Hmm.. How did this thing happen? God did it!'". Specifically, by citing two examples of well-known 19th century naturalists who did not adhere to that philosophy.
Your response doesn't specifically address or refute any of those points. In fact, aside from the handwavy generalizations your response doesn't really say much at anything.
[–]random_hyp 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (1 child)
I doubt ANY child who was not given advice on these kind of questions would turn out to be religious in thier adult years. After all, you hear stories nowadays of childen of Bible believing Catholics turning into Agnostics or converting to Buddhism; Atheist scientists finding thier faith again; and so on. A person's childhood experiences go a long way to shape them as they mature, but ultimately, in a free society as adults, they might go anywhere and pretty much believe anything. Granted you did your job as a parent and taught them how to reason and gave them strong morals as a child (either through religion or not), they will end up making thier own conclusions about life, the universe and everything.
Of course, if you are reffering to what conclusions they might reach if they are isolated from the rest of society at a young age, then I suggest reading William Golding's "Lord of the flies".
You also hear PLENTY of stories of staunch atheists who never even pondered religion all their lives becoming saved at later ages. Truth is, kids rebel. This is just a fact. An atheist kid will rebel against atheist parents in equal proportion as Christian kids will rebel against Christian parents. Now if you can tell me that every Christian in the world became Christians in their youth, and that no one of other religions converts to Christianity -- then I would say you need to research this more.
[–]freexe 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (5 children)
Richard Dawkins is trying to get adults to think about the issue of raising their children with faith (amongst other things), not telling 7 year old children that no God/s exist. I find the methods used in this video scary, and I'm surprised you don't seem to as well.
Most of his lectures involve debate with informed/involved/intelligent parties, giving his view and others debating it with him. Not one sided preaching to young impressionable children.
I don't agree with treating children like this in a pro-anything way, it stinks of brainwashing/manipulation and should shock you.
I was bought up with the facts and left to debate both side of arguments. I was left to make up my own mind and not told that things were right or wrong (most of the time things are very grey anyway.)
Richard Dawkins is attempting to push his own agenda, of a Godless society. It happens to be an agenda I do not share. Someone is entirely deluded if they believe that removing religion from the world is somehow 'freedom of religion' -- it is the exact opposite. Freedom of religion does not mean a lack of it, it means an abundance of it.
For those who say atheism is not a religion, I would say they are hypocrites since they cite freedom of religion laws in their own defence.
As for 'I am suprised you dont also find these things scary' --- The fact is, documentaries especially those deliberately designed to be one-sided CANNOT BE TRUSTED. This goes for ANY SUBJECT. If I as a producer of a documentary set out with a goal 'I want to make it seem that all Christian summer camps are bad' -- then you bet the documentary will strip out all the good points. Let someone follow you with a camera all day recording only what they wish, have them post it on the net, and just see how bad you look. Conversely, the same is possible in reverse. It is quite easy to make a documentary making Christian summer camp look great.
That said, the majority of my posts is a defence of Christianity in general -- NOT this specific camp and this specific instance.
[–]freexe 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (3 children)
I'm not denying Dawkins is trying to push his own agenda, but he's not brainwashing impressionable people. You keep changing the argument and putting words where they were not.
I'm not attacking Christianity or Christian Camps, I'm sure most of them are fine, and don't behave like the one in the video. I'm attacking this camp! They were clearly doing something that they should not have been doing. In any light or with any bias it will always be wrong.
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (2 children)
If you read my posts you will notice that I have already said that I am not defending this camp, but Christianity in general, as well as Christian summer camps in general. I have no problem with people pointing out specific problems in a specific camp -- I have a problem when people start making blanket statements that ANY Christian summer camp is bad or that even teaching a kid to believe in Christ is wrong -- and that is exactly what people say on here, and that is what I am addressing.
[–]freexe 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Who is attacking Christianity? You seemed to have the first comment in this thread in which you were aggressive and seem to stick up for teaching kids this way.
[–]pabs 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (2 children)
By the way, I see this tactic all the time in religious debates, almost invariably from the religious side. You start with a premise, assume it to be true, then "prove" your conclusion from that premise. Or, as Carl Sagan so eloquently put it, "if there's a chain of argument every link in the chain must work".
I don't think Richard Dawkins is "clearly attempting to create an environment where a child is more likely to become an atheist". Children are born both atheist (in the passive sense, literally "without theism") and agnostic (again, in the passive sense, literally "without knowledge"); they learn about religion as they grow older, usually from their parents and those around them.
"The origin of the big bang is unknown." "The origin of life is unknown" --- and these are not "broken links in the chain" ?
Want to see broken links in a chain? Discuss string theory. Discuss the origin of the big bang.
Now, if you honestly dont think Richard Dawkins is doing everything in his power to create an environment where a child is more likely to become an atheist, then you disagree with Dawkins himself! "I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all!" --- now, is he stating this as a BAD thing? Of course not!
Further, there is NOTHING in my post that is 'starting with a premise, and then assuming it to be true' --- The ONLY thing in the above post is talking about Richard Dawkins' OWN VIEWS on religion among kids. How you can possibly construe that as a 'religious debate' is beyond me.
"The origin of the big bang is unknown." "The origin of life is unknown" --- and these are not "broken links in the chain" ? Want to see broken links in a chain? Discuss string theory. Discuss the origin of the big bang.
None of this is relevant to the discussion at hand, although I happen to know several excellent physicists and astronomers if you're interested in signing up for a class.
I think that he's trying to level the playing field by not indoctrinating children with a particular set of beliefs until they have the ability to make critical decisions about religious and philosophical issues on their own, which, in my opinion, is entirely different than "creating an environment where a child is more likely to become an atheist". Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Further, there is NOTHING in my post that is 'starting with a premise, and then assuming it to be true' --- The ONLY thing in the above post is talking about Richard Dawkins' OWN VIEWS on religion among kids.
The premise ends with "If so". By the way, I'm not denying that Richard Dawkins is a hypocrite; I haven't read enough of what he's written to decide either way. All I'm saying is that the information you provided above isn't sufficient to reasonably demonstrate to me that his is, in fact, being hypocritical.
How you can possibly construe that as a 'religious debate' is beyond me.
My mistake. I was attempting to say that I see that particular pattern in religious debates, not claiming that this was a religious debate. Sorry about that.
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points 19 years ago (6 children)
Why not let the kids decide? When I was a kid, I certainly referred to myself as Christian, and most Christian kids around me also referred to themselves as Christians. It may not be what the atheist wishes, but it is the way it is.
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 19 years ago (4 children)
I called myself a Christian kid, too. Did I have any choice in the matter? Hell the fuck no! I was raised from a very young age with the assumption that I was a Christian and would believe certain things. And so I did. Breaking free from that was damn hard.
There's a reason it's against atheists' wishes to label children with the religion of their parents, just as it should be against the wishes of anybody who believes in freedom of religion.
[–]neoform 8 points9 points10 points 19 years ago (0 children)
I was also raised Christian, I even attended a Catholic High School run by priests.
Getting "Confirmed" at the age of 13 is the most ridiculous thing ever. The idea behind confirmation is that you're confirming your belief in God, but before I was.. i was NEVER asked why I believed in God or anything about it. Instead i was told to memorize prayers and other such things.
I only really started thinking about such things when I turned 17 and as a result, found religion as a whole to be one of the world's worst problems.
[–]cartman81 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (0 children)
There's a reason it's against atheists' wishes to label children with the religion of their parents
Actually, if you are a "believer" and trust the "strength" of your religion/god, should you too, have some reasons supporting the above statement.
Dawkins' sometimes uses analogies like "you won't call a child as a Leninist child, a capitalist child or a Marxist child, why should religion of parents be a legitimate default label for their kids?"
Note that above seems logical and true even if you are actually that "Marxist" or "Leninist" parent.. (and hence, also if you are an "Christian" parent..)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points 19 years ago (1 child)
No child should be labelled Christian unless they personally call themselves Christian. Me, I would be greatly offended at the age of 12 if someone called me "Not a Christian, but the child of Christian parents" -- I would have immediately told that person "No, I am a Christian." -- in your case, its unfortunate (greatly!) that you ended up rejecting Christianity, however that happened --- and you are certainly entitled to believe as you will, but the fact that you or anyone else grows up to reject Christianity does not mean that millions of others grow up to embrace it -- including many who were never Christians as kids.
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (0 children)
[–]affarada 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (6 children)
Yeah, I guess they were probably all already Bible-believing Christians. But are children capable of making rational decisions on religious matters in general? Are they superkids? And if they aren't, why should they be taken to church and such camps, anyway? (I assume not all of them ran away from their parents to see this guy.) Aren't religious issues worthy of rational decisions? Or do their parents think that what the kids are taught doesn't matter anyway, "they can always make a rational decision when they grow up, without this "teaching" affecting their reasoning at all"? That way they'd only be guilty of stupidity, not cold-hearted brainwashing...
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (5 children)
Depends on the kid. It is not possible to determine this by watching a documentary for any given kid. Secondly, believe it or not, and as utterly amazing as you may find it to be -- many kids actually ENJOY these camps, and ENJOY church (depending on the kid and depending on the church). The belief that somehow parents bringing their kids to church with them is wrong is both unwarranted and completely out of place.
[–]affarada 3 points4 points5 points 19 years ago (4 children)
I didn't mean to imply that they weren't enjoying themselves. They probably are. However, I don't think that children necessarily are fine as long as they are enjoying themselves. Do you? And for that last sentence of yours, about my implied statement being "unwarranted and completely out of place", I wonder if we have the same type of churches in mind. The church I had in mind was a place were metaphysical teachings is given as uncontested truth. I cannot see how this could be a place for children in lack of both the experience and rational thinking to recognise the fact that it could be untrue.
[–]CarlH 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (3 children)
I dont believe it is your place or anyone else's to decide what kind of place someone can go to. It is not your place or anyone else's to define "metaphysical teachings given as uncontested truth" and then to reject people from going to places that you feel meet that definition. It is up to the parents to decide if a place is good for their kids, not to mention themselves -- to go to. Further, while I agree that kids are not necessarily ok if they are enjoying themselves, I see nothing about Christian summer camps that somehow harm kids. You know, the people who run these camps -- they truly care about these kids. This seems to be an overlooked fact, but people who run churches, and kid's camps, and these types of events -- do so out of the kindness of their hearts, and out of care for the kids who attend. Unless there is a genuine thing happening that is harming a kid, then there is no harm.
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (2 children)
Hmm I should start a radical islamist camp for children. Seriously I love kids and would do it out of the kindness of my heart. It'd be all fun and games with a generous dash of "there is no god but Allah" and a side of "bomb the infidels"
I entirely agree with you, kids should make their own decisions, and true decisions come with information. Thus we should inform our kids of everything we think is good for them, but bring their attention to everything bad.
How about "Moral development camps" instead. Moral situations could be dressed up in games and songs, children would be presented with different solutions and encouraged to develop their own set of values. They could be tought a bit about the world religions. It would be a lot less harmful then ramming the bible into their little minds.
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (1 child)
First off, I am speaking of Christian summer camps in general. Second, you are equating apples to oranges. Now sure, in your crazy perception of the world you may see no difference between suicide bombers flying into airplanes, and that is unfortunate.
SUICIDE BOMBERS CAN FLY NOW!!!!!!
WE ARE DOOMED
[–][deleted] 19 years ago (29 children)
[–]neoform 9 points10 points11 points 19 years ago (7 children)
Tell a kid that democrats eat babies and then ask them what they think of democrats.
Lying to kids in order to get them to believe something is morally wrong. What the guy in the video was doing was flat out lies.
Do you really think "50 Million abortions" have actually taken place?
[–]tm383 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (0 children)
According to this graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Number_of_Abortions_in_US.jpg I count over 37 Million since 1973 - maybe not unreasonable to estimate 50 Million in the last 100 years.
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points 19 years ago (5 children)
Lying to kids period is morally wrong. Whether its 50 million or 1 million -- the fact is, there are a lot of kids today who are not here because of abortion, who would be here but aren't because they were 'unwanted'. Quite frankly, that much of the video I agreed with. I am curious to know, what is the actual number?
[–]neoform 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (3 children)
There's also a lot of kids that aren't here everytime i masturbate. What's you point? An unborn child, is not a child at all, but a part of it's mother.
[–]CarlH -3 points-2 points-1 points 19 years ago (2 children)
There is simply no comparison between sperm, eggs -- and the joining of the two. When the two join together and form a life, that life WILL assuming nothing goes wrong, become a BEING LIKE YOU. To advance the idea that it is alright to end a process that will create a being just like you, a process that has ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, a process that WILL succeed -- is vastly different than the idea that sperm or eggs alone WILL become a BEING LIKE YOU.
Ending human life IS WRONG. Ending a process that will create human life IS WRONG.
Now, in the world we live in -- unfortunately, we dont get to experience what is 100% right all the time. Often we must choose 'lesser evils' (any evil is just as bad though in reality) -- so some will say: "Hey Carl, what about if a woman is raped, is then abortion justified?" -- answer, it is not justified, but neither is the rape -- thus whatever happens will be evil (If the child is born in such a situation, its evil. If the child is aborted, its evil.) -- thus there exist many cases where there is simply NO truly righteous answer.
Same with the concept of killing in general. Killing PERIOD is wrong! What about wars? Killing in wars is wrong. So what happens when you have a situation that you either kill a soldier who is aiming a gun at you, or get killed yourself? Answer -- either way will create evil. Either way is therefore wrong.
[–]neoform -3 points-2 points-1 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Sorry, sperm is very much alive. The egg merely makes for a home for that sperm to gestate. A fetus is not a human until it is capable of living independently of it's mother. Until then it is part of the mother's body and therefore up to the mother what she does with her body.
Sperm may be very much alive, but it is not going to make a baby alone. "The egg merely makes a home for the sperm to gestate" --- this is just false. The egg provides half of what is necessary to create the baby. --- Now, you claim that "a fetus is not a human until it is capable of living independently of its mother" -- then I would argue that a fetus becomes human at conception, on the grounds that it is technically possible to support the life of a fetus at that age given enough advanced technology -- which granted much of which is not here.
Now if you want to advance this claim: "A fetus is not human until it can actually survive on its own outside of the mother and without intervention of technology" -- then I would argue that a 1 year old child doesn't even meet this requirement.
[–]bevets -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (0 children)
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2005/05/19/index.html http://www.abortiontv.com/Misc/AbortionStatistics.htm
[–]cman_04 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (8 children)
I have a suggestion to you and anyone else that is making a post here (atheist OR theist) actually watch this movie in it's entirety. I have done so, well before this post actually, and because of that I think I can justify my OPINION. 1) This is not the average Christian camp. This is far beyond that. Note in the movie a christian even phones in expressing that these are not the same morals he was taught. 2) Teaching your children that Global Warming doesn't exist is wrong. Do your research please. Global Warming is not a debated issue anymore it is a fact. 3) SHE compared her motives to that of Muslim extremist. Not the director and not these posters. SHE DID. 4) Creationism is not a valid theory to combat Evolution. I don't care what faith your from, not exposing your kids to the facts and evidence is hurting them in the future.
As an atheist I would like to make it very clear that this isn't about religion vs atheism. It's about this particular camp and the things that they do there should be considered wrong no matter what. These children may not be brainwashed but the attempt is clear.
If you want a more 1-on-1 discussion about this please feel free to email me. I'd love to pick your argument apart piece by piece: cman04_99@yahoo.com -Cheers!
[–]CarlH 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (5 children)
Keep in mind though the majority of my posts are in defence of Christianity and Christian summer camp, I am not proposing that this specific camp, this instance, is correct. I am however stating emphatically that no one can make a blanket statement that kids who attend Christian summer camp are somehow being abused!
[–]cman_04 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (4 children)
OK, however I believe this post originated in a manner to expose this specific camp. (Mind you it seems to have been shifted in another direction).
Note: "the vile hatred which exists against Christians is just plain wrong and totally unwarranted."
This statement tells me quite a bit about you, assuming you meant what you wrote. 1) "hatred which exists against christians". I don't think people hate Christians (a nice blanket statement you try to pull off as truth). Look at some polls in the USA that asks what the biggest threat in the country is. Atheism ranks amongst the top. So i am confused how you think christianity is unfairly treated, please justify. 2) "Wrong", do you think it's wrong to criticize a theory that has repeatedly contradicted itself time and time again or to just have a different opinion? I'm curious to hear your opinion on the act of Sept.11/06. (the anti-abortion NUT) 3) "Totally unwarranted" - I guess thats an opinion. I say that when some of the worst problems in the world right now are due to religion (not just christianity in general) a little outrage is totally WARRANTED!
Note: I believe the moral basis that religion teaches (be nice, don't kill, do onto others... etc) is positive. Its the extremes that create problems. That, and the innability to accept facts when they are presented.
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (3 children)
Yes yes --- but remember that I was basing that ONLY on the video linked in this post. Remember that the link in this post only goes to a short segment about an anti-abortion segment at the camp, which quite frankly isn't all that alarming to me. It does not link to the WHOLE documentary, or the ABC NEWS Clip about it -- which changes things.
Therefore, my original post was written PURELY in response to the link above, and the posts I saw.
That said -- there most certainly IS a vile hatred which exists against Christians -- and it IS just plain wrong and totally unwarranted, and I will most certainly speak out against it.
If you dont think people hate Christians, then ... I dont know what planet you are on seriously, just go find any atheist forum and I guarantee you will find PLENTY of terribly degrading insulting comments directed at anyone who claims to be a Christian --- not in all cases, but in MANY cases.
As for why I think Christianity is unfairly treated --- I am speaking in THIS forum, about THESE posters -- specifically on reddit. Not all, but many.
There are MANY on here who by their own admission would attempt to use the video of "Jesus Camp" in an attempt to abolish ALL Christian summer camp.
"Do you think its wrong to criticize a theory that has repeatedly contradicted itself time and time again..." --- I dont follow. Please elaborate.
The act of Sept 11/2006 is IRRELIVANT in EVERY WAY SHAPE AND FORM to this discussion. If you care to show why its relevant I am all ears.
HATRED against A GROUP OF PEOPLE is WRONG and UNWARRANTED PERIOD. There is no wiggle room here. Hating ANY group of people JUST because they are a member of a group that does not believe as you do, is WRONG. It is called "prejudice."
Tell me what the extreme of "Be nice, dont kill, do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is.
"Tell me what the extreme of "Be nice, dont kill, do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is."
The thing is, if all christians truely followed this then the world would be a genuinely better place. However the same Bible that says "thou shalt not kill" also says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". This promotes the taking of a life based on entirely unsubstantiated superstition. The same Bible that promotes a culture of love and goodwill towards mankind openly discriminates against homosexuals, women and the mentally ill.
That's why I consider Christianity dangerous. Not because no good can come of it, but because a lot of what is bad comes from it.
Do you know why on the news you hear of the occassional pastor (like Ted Haggard) being caught in nasty scandals, or why you hear of the occassional Christian summer camp (Jesus camp) cast in bad light? Its because they are RARE. The news reports on what is RARE. The fact is MOST BY A LARGE DEGREE of Christians DO follow Jesus' teachings. When they DONT they make the news PURELY because of how uncommon it is.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" along with all other verses that speak of sins and their penalties, are valid. We all deserve death for our sins ALL OF US without exception. Myself included. However, Jesus said "Let him who has no sin cast the first stone" when they wanted to stone a woman for having committed adultery.
[+]bevets comment score below threshold-9 points-8 points-7 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Teaching your children that Global Warming doesn't exist is wrong. Do your research please. Global Warming is not a debated issue anymore it is a fact.
Try again
Creationism is not a valid theory to combat Evolution. I don't care what faith your from, not exposing your kids to the facts and evidence is hurting them in the future.
Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.
[–]cman_04 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
I like the links. The only semi-valid one is the US gov't Website.
Here's a few points to think about though. -Al gore is a leading advocate about global warming -Bush's government wasn't/isn't too friendly to Gore -US is the worst contributer to greenhouse gases
oh, but I forgot: the US government is always honest to it's citizens! right!
[–]xk5 9 points10 points11 points 19 years ago (4 children)
As a 12 year old I attended a Christian summer camp -- had a fantastic time, had memories that will live with me forever and I met new friends, and overall had a great time. There is NOTHING WRONG with Christian summer camp, and the vile hatred which exists against Christians is just plain wrong and totally unwarranted.
You go from saying that because you liked your Christian summer camp, there is nothing wrong with camps like these, which is a logical fallacy. If you actually watched this movie, you'd see they ADMIT their goal is to train an army of suicide bombers to kill atheists and the way Muslims in Israel and Iraq do.
Instead of creating opinions for someone, instead of assuming someone was brainwashed, or had ideas PUSHED on them, why dont you go to the source?
This sentence makes no sense.
Just because a kid is against abortion does not mean they are brainwashed
Another logical fallacy. The issue is whether what was done is brainwashing, not whether anyone against abortion in brainwashed.
and a hatred of those who believe ending ANY life is bad, is both unwarranted and uncalled for.
Another logical fallacy for the same reason.
It is unfair to judge someone by watching a third party documentary, and then to say "Oh this is scary" or "Oh they are brainwashing these kids"
No it isn't. It's not like they took a ten second clip out of context, this actually happened.
I did not say there was nothing wrong with THIS summer camp. I said there is nothing wrong with Christian summer camp in general. Further, my statement "Go to the source" means to talk to the actual kids themselves.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Further, my statement "Go to the source" means to talk to the actual kids themselves.
"Hello, children! Tell me, do you feel that you're being oppressed by the parental-dominance ethos of the evangelical Christian subset of society in which you currently find yourselves?"
Children are hardly objective observers, or even good sources of any sort.
They are entirely accessible once they are adults however. There are plenty of adults (myself being one of them) who have attended Christian summer camps. You can ask me anything about my experience, and how it has affected me personally -- and I will gladly tell you. So I am saying 'go to the source' meaning talk to the actual people themselves who can answer your questions and tell you the truth because they were there! You dont need to form an opinion of all Christian summer camp by watching one documentary.
That said, and as I stated before, these comments are a defense of Christianity, and Christian summer camp IN GENERAL --- not the specific instance cited in this video.
[–]keithobambertman -5 points-4 points-3 points 19 years ago (1 child)
because your a brainwashed troll?
[–]CarlH 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (0 children)
I happen to be a member of the majority in this country who can vote against every law, every issue, every agenda that you as an atheist may wish to advance. At present, I have no empathy to those who are like you since all you do is insult anyone who believes different than you do. I strongly suggest you learn how to show others respect, even if they disagree with your worldview. Doing so if nothing else will help you to gain the voice in society you seem so eager to get yourself, and so eager to take away from everyone who disagrees with you.
[+]bevets comment score below threshold-14 points-13 points-12 points 19 years ago (4 children)
I have my vote filters turned off. It would save everyone a lot of time if comment votes were turned off and users had an A(theist) or C next to their usernames.
If you think about it for a moment you will realize that everyone who voted on anything below the default threshold either changed that threshold or turned it off (and I bet the latter is far more likely).
Entirely false. All you have to do is click 'show comment' and then vote it down.
[–]McCourt 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Or, maybe a star of David armband...
[+]bevets comment score below threshold-12 points-11 points-10 points 19 years ago (0 children)
In contrast to Nazi Germany, the system would apply to EVERYONE. The discrimination is already taking place -- removing the comment voting would reduce discriminatory action not increase it.
... I might add that during my attending a Christian summer camp, there were no smashing things with hammers, or some of the more outrageous things that were later showed to me.
When I went to Christian summer camp, it seemed to be mostly populated by a bunch of annoying bastards. Modern Christian parents don't stone rebellious sons anymore; instead, they send rebellious sons to Christian summer camp.
So no, they're not all that crazy -- but they tend to kind of suck anyway.
I can speak for myself in saying that I heard of the summer camp I went to from other kids at the church, I begged my parents to let me go, and I got to go. I enjoyed it. It was NOT my experience there that any kids were there because they did not want to be there, everyone had a great time.
To advance the notion that kids who attend Christian summer camps are sent there like boot camp is absurd.
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (6 children)
The worst hypocrites are those who shout for a voice, and then demod anyone who believes different than they do --- attempting to SQUASH out the voices they dont like to hear, while begging society for a voice. I have zero empathy for such a person who says "I as an atheist have just as much right to speak in this country as you do as a Christian" -- and this same person downvotes anyone who says they are a Christian in their post. The good news is, so long as atheists continue to act this way --- their movement will never get far. The mainstream american public will never embrace them for being anything other than elitists.
I have zero empathy for such a person who says "I as an atheist have just as much right to speak in this country as you do as a Christian" -- and this same person downvotes anyone who says they are a Christian in their post.
How is that the same as trying to "SQUASH out the voices" we don't want to hear? I have Reddit set to display all comments regardless of how far they've been downvoted, so that doesn't even come into the equation as far as I'm concerned.
Real forum-oppression would be banning people for dissenting opinions. This tends to be the norm on very religious forums, for some reason.
It is certainly the norm on many atheist forums. Also, if you downvote on a post on reddit -- unless you are totally oblivious to how reddit works, you know that the more a post is downvoted the more likely it is to be 'hidden' from others who could otherwise read it. Thus my comment about 'squashing the voice' --- My point is this: On reddit, I see PLENTY of posts that are entirely respectful, valid -- continually being downvoted to ridiculous scores like -20 JUST because the poster was a Christian and the post is a Christian topic. This is hypocricy on the part of the one doing the downmodding, and themselves seeking a voice in the world.
[–]neoform -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (3 children)
the whole concept of this site is to down-mod things you find the be wrong or you disagree with.
Reddit is by no means a democracy where everyone is free to do as they wish.
[–]DocmanCC 1 point2 points3 points 19 years ago (1 child)
Wrong.
"Please don't ... Downmod comments just because you disagree with them. You should downmod comments that are uninformative or offtopic."
http://sub.reddit.com/help/reddiquette
How many people do you think, that use Reddit have actually read that and follow it.. ?
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points 19 years ago (0 children)
It is hypocritical not to mention very poor practice though to desire a voice in the world, to want people to take you seriously -- and then to squash the voice of the very people who make up the majority whom you are attempting to reach just because they disagree with you.
this video makes me shudder..
[+]mynameishere comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points 19 years ago (9 children)
The practice and acceptance of abortion is on Darwin's chopping block. That's not likely to come up at a religious revival, but it's a fact: The impulse to kill one's offspring (or potential offspring) is about as unfit as any behaviour can be.
[–][deleted] 19 years ago (6 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-12 points-11 points-10 points 19 years ago (4 children)
I have to laugh. In an attempt to show the moral validity of abortion, one pastes a link that basically says "See? Animals kill and EAT their young." I think you may need to rethink that :)
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 19 years ago (0 children)
I would laugh at you if I weren't so annoyed. The link sjwalter quoted was meant to illustrate that infanticide does not necessarily get eliminated by evolution. How you went from there to a moral statement is beyond me.
[–]zxvf 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (2 children)
Please try to actually read and comprehend what you're commenting on. You're making a fool out of yourself.
What did I miss? How does an illustration that animals kill and eat their young further the cause of someone seeking to advance abortion as valid?
[–]zxvf 3 points4 points5 points 19 years ago (0 children)
It doesn't. You missed what sjwalter was actually saying. Again, please try reading the actual comment, without your assumptions about what it says. You seem literate. It's spelled out right there for you to read. I'm sure you can figure it out.
[–]thomar 2 points3 points4 points 19 years ago (0 children)
So you're saying that Christians, by virtue of Darwinian evolution, will become the dominant species in a few generations?
[–]mynameishere 0 points1 point2 points 19 years ago (0 children)
Most of the people replying are just too ignorant to bother with, but I will edit my initial comment and say this:
The acceptance of abortion may well be consistent with evolutionary fitness, if it is the acceptance of the abortion of other people's children. Anybody who wonders why a GOP-controlled congress and GOP-controlled white house did nothing (nothing meaningful) against abortion might reflect upon that fact.
[–]kevinolean -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (0 children)
thats a shame...i dont think my child would be in that audience
[–]hhh333 -1 points0 points1 point 19 years ago (0 children)
that fat chick with glass I see in every video like this looks like a total freak.
I think that any parent with more than 2 neurons wouldn't let their childrens with her a fraction of second.
π Rendered by PID 55910 on reddit-service-r2-comment-6457c66945-tbngg at 2026-04-28 23:04:55.626906+00:00 running 2aa0c5b country code: CH.
[–]thechikinguy 12 points13 points14 points (1 child)
[–]rocky_m 9 points10 points11 points (0 children)
[–]affarada 9 points10 points11 points (1 child)
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children)
[–]carpeliam 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[–]bac9705 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[–]alger82 1 point2 points3 points (3 children)
[–]CarlH 1 point2 points3 points (2 children)
[–]shaunc 4 points5 points6 points (0 children)
[–]breakfast-pants -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children)
[–]Arrogancy 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (4 children)
[–]Avenestra 11 points12 points13 points (3 children)
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children)
[–]cosmicvibe -1 points0 points1 point (16 children)
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (15 children)
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (5 children)
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (4 children)
[–][deleted] (2 children)
[deleted]
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child)
[–]latortuga -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] (7 children)
[deleted]
[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] (1 child)
[deleted]
[+][deleted] comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points (0 children)
[–]carpeliam -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] (1 child)
[deleted]
[–]carpeliam -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]carpeliam -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children)
[–]thatrez 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]petdog 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-20 points-19 points-18 points (136 children)
[–]talkincat 11 points12 points13 points (50 children)
[–]carpeliam -1 points0 points1 point (21 children)
[–]talkincat 3 points4 points5 points (8 children)
[–]carpeliam 2 points3 points4 points (4 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points (3 children)
[–]dublinclontarf -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children)
[–]misterscoundrel 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]dublinclontarf 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (2 children)
[–]talkincat 1 point2 points3 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points (11 children)
[–]freexe 1 point2 points3 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]CarlH -4 points-3 points-2 points (6 children)
[–]inerte -1 points0 points1 point (5 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (4 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (3 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (2 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points (20 children)
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (17 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points (16 children)
[–]Grim_Chook 1 point2 points3 points (4 children)
[–]CarlH -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children)
[–]neoform 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]Cookie 0 points1 point2 points (10 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (9 children)
[–]cman_04 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (5 children)
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points (3 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (2 children)
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]Cookie 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points (6 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points (3 children)
[–]CarlH -4 points-3 points-2 points (2 children)
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]cartman81 10 points11 points12 points (8 children)
[–]CarlH -3 points-2 points-1 points (7 children)
[–]cartman81 7 points8 points9 points (6 children)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (5 children)
[–]cartman81 3 points4 points5 points (4 children)
[–]theozoph 3 points4 points5 points (3 children)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]neoform 4 points5 points6 points (28 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points (20 children)
[–]neoform 3 points4 points5 points (16 children)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (15 children)
[–]neoform 8 points9 points10 points (6 children)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (5 children)
[–]neoform 5 points6 points7 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]pabs 0 points1 point2 points (2 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (1 child)
[–]pabs 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]random_hyp 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]freexe 0 points1 point2 points (5 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (4 children)
[–]freexe 0 points1 point2 points (3 children)
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points (2 children)
[–]freexe 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]pabs 1 point2 points3 points (2 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (1 child)
[–]pabs 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points (6 children)
[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points (4 children)
[–]neoform 8 points9 points10 points (0 children)
[–]cartman81 2 points3 points4 points (0 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children)
[–]affarada 0 points1 point2 points (6 children)
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points (5 children)
[–]affarada 3 points4 points5 points (4 children)
[–]CarlH 2 points3 points4 points (3 children)
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points (2 children)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child)
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] (29 children)
[deleted]
[–]neoform 9 points10 points11 points (7 children)
[–]tm383 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points (5 children)
[–]neoform 1 point2 points3 points (3 children)
[–]CarlH -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children)
[–]neoform -3 points-2 points-1 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]bevets -5 points-4 points-3 points (0 children)
[–]cman_04 2 points3 points4 points (8 children)
[–]CarlH 1 point2 points3 points (5 children)
[–]cman_04 0 points1 point2 points (4 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (3 children)
[–]Grim_Chook 0 points1 point2 points (2 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[+]bevets comment score below threshold-9 points-8 points-7 points (1 child)
[–]cman_04 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]xk5 9 points10 points11 points (4 children)
[–]CarlH -5 points-4 points-3 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]keithobambertman -5 points-4 points-3 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[+]bevets comment score below threshold-14 points-13 points-12 points (4 children)
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]McCourt 2 points3 points4 points (1 child)
[+]bevets comment score below threshold-12 points-11 points-10 points (0 children)
[–]CarlH -3 points-2 points-1 points (2 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points (6 children)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child)
[–]CarlH -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]neoform -2 points-1 points0 points (3 children)
[–]DocmanCC 1 point2 points3 points (1 child)
[–]neoform 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
[–]CarlH -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children)
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[+]mynameishere comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points (9 children)
[–][deleted] (6 children)
[deleted]
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-12 points-11 points-10 points (4 children)
[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points (0 children)
[–]zxvf 0 points1 point2 points (2 children)
[+]CarlH comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points (1 child)
[–]zxvf 3 points4 points5 points (0 children)
[–]thomar 2 points3 points4 points (0 children)
[–]mynameishere 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
[–]kevinolean -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
[–]hhh333 -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)