Disturbing Christian material . . . . . . . .

[Sandman]

I prefer brimfire-spouting fundamentalists to complacent, institutional faiths that expect the government to serve up young minds on a platter.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
All children should be ensured an education free from indoctrination...

I have never heard of education which is free from indoctrination. I beleive it is not possible. Educate means to indoctrinate. What you mean is that you think all children should be ensured an education free from indoctrination which you disagree with. That is always, from what I have observed, what people mean by that statement.

JM

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


But the whole point of the idea of a Christian school, is that you are arround others who are (or are acting) Christian. Otherwise, would it be a Christian school? Once more, if you don't want to be arround Christians, don't go to a Christian school.

I have no problem with the idea of a Christian school . My objection is to the way they implement the policy - by using intellectual intimidation , the same way the "liberal" majority does in normal discourse .

Originally posted by Jon Miller

And somehow I missed quoting it, but if the state sends students to a Christian school, that is wrong. I am firmly against that. It should be the students themselves, or their parents, who decide (because like it or not, parents are responsible for their kids education, and that includes moral).

Of course parents are responsible for their childrens' education . Who ever is questioning that ? That's just common sense .

What I'm thinking about is the situation where a student is put into this school by his conservative/orthodox/whatever the word is Christian parents , but who feels stifled due their policies towards dissenters . I'm mainly worried about the situation where the student has no role in influencing his educational environment .





OK . I got it . I finally understood what you're trying to say . You're saying that it is not the job of the school to ensure that a student is given the power to make decisions concerning his education . And I agree . And therfore I retract most of my criticisms of this school .

There are very few times when people change their minds over a debate on an internet forum , but this is one of them . You , sir , have convinced me that if ever there is a problem , 90 % of it comes from parents or students making wrong choices - such as a student who is unhappy not confronting his parents honestly and telling them his position .

That 10 % criticism still stands , however . I still disapprove of using scare tactics and fear-inspiring imagery to promote religion - no matter what religion it is . I'd rather they use more benign methods , and not use what amounts to intellectual coercion , because thus sort of thing backfires and prejudices a person against whatever religion it is he was scared into accepting .

Originally posted by Jon Miller

You, and others, are basically enforcing your beliefs down these people's throats. That is why they have their own schools, and they don't (or they shouldn't, and in the US they don't) force you to go to them. You go to them by choice (and that appears to be the case with this one as well, despite being in India, where apparently they don't have the freedoms of thought that we enjoy here).

There is freedom of religion in India for every community except the Hindus . The Taliban were inspired by the Indian school of Islam . That school of Islam still preaches that same hatred to unbelievers even today . And nothing is done about it . But the minute a Hindu tries to open a school based on his ideals , even if it does not bother with other religions at all , and preaches tolerance , he is called a fascist/hate-monger/bigot/usual-PC-crap by everyone . I've seen it happen . Indian Christians still believe that they're superior to everyone else in the country , and their missionary-run schools reinforce that belief . I know this because I actually talked to a few . One of them was a Creationist . But are they ever criticised ? Oh , no . That wouldn't be "secular" , would it ?

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Jon Miller
(also, states do a poor job of bringing up kids..)

That's why in India we've adopted the happy medium . The state does not control private schools , but private schools can be affiliated to the government by following their syllabus and meeting their other requirements . Each state its own educational boards ( deciding curriculae and other things ) , and the central government has its own board , which it applies to the capital and any other schools which might want to be interested . Mine was a private school which was affiliated to the CBSE ( the Central Board of Secondary Education ) .

Let us note here that most schools in India are private , and affiliated with either their state or the central board . Private schools are not the exclusive province of the rich , as they are in America . Here , everyone ( lower middle class and above ) sends their children to a private school .

[Jon Miller]

Hmm, if most of your schools are private, then there should be some Hindu schools, because wouldn't some want their children brought up in a Hindu atmosphere?

I also dislike the fire and brimstone Christians.. I think they do my cause harm. And I my dislike of their techniques is for the reasons you describe. I am not saying that that is good, I am just saying that that should be allowed.

It is true that sometimes parents are so overbearing, that their children have a hard time coming out on their own. This can be for all sorts of parents though, not just Christian or religious. I am not sure what to do about that...

JM

[Elok]

Aha! I've hit on a solution that will please all parties: we just require these private schools to put disclaimers on their textbooks reading, "The damnation of unbelievers is a theory, NOT A FACT."

It should be a hit in Kansas.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I highly doubt that was the reason MtG didn't want you post pics of dead people.

It was in a thread titled "Awesome military pics" or something like that. It didn't quite fit in the tone of the thread (though most pics had no awesomeness in them, like the pics of someone's cousin camping in the desert)

And though it occured in that thread, MtG clearly stated that nobody was to post pics of corspes for some time.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

You are doing right now what you are upset about other people doing.

Jon Miller

How do you come to that conclusion?

[Ben Kenobi]

There is a problem with beliefs that have negative effects on others. Xtian fundies are not outside the set of people who can do harm with their dogma.

Then it's up to you to demonstrate precisely how Christian fundamentalists do harm to civil society. Remember the same beliefs that they have also motivate them to help other people, so you have to consider their beliefs in their entirety rather then cherry pick as you have here.

Preaching hell-fire for the unbelievers is at best annoying, and at worst harmful. Why continue to do it?

When the question is why do folks preach then yes it pertains to the topic. NYE, I didn't start the thread, so keep that in mind.

I know many Muslims whose company I would prefer to anyone who wants to discuss my eternal damnation for failing to believe as they do.

Well the question has been asked and answered. I don't know where your heart is at NYE, and it is not up to me to judge whether you will go to hell or not.

Fundies can annoy, and worse, no matter what deity they worship, or what colour robes they deem fit to worship said deity.

Mild annoyance or dhimmitude? I think I'll take mild annoyance under Christian fundamentalists for 200 Alex.

People who state such 'facts' are little different whether you worship in a Cathedral or teach in a Madrassa. You're both full of hooey, and both of you are doing harm to civil society.

Please show me where I explicitly say NYE, you are going to hell. I haven't.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Hmm, if most of your schools are private, then there should be some Hindu schools, because wouldn't some want their children brought up in a Hindu atmosphere?

The media and politicians would raise a hullabaloo and have it closed down , or at least they would sling a hell of a lot of mud at it . As I said , there is freedom of religion in India for everyone except the Hindus . The minute we try to promote our religion , we are covered with the vilest of abuses . There is already a hue and cry about secular schools simply because they're run by Hindu organisations . I live in a country which is actively anti-majority .

Originally posted by Jon Miller

It is true that sometimes parents are so overbearing, that their children have a hard time coming out on their own. This can be for all sorts of parents though, not just Christian or religious. I am not sure what to do about that...

JM

I've come to realise that that is the root of the problem , actually , and I have no idea as to how to deal with that .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Then it's up to you to demonstrate precisely how Christian fundamentalists do harm to civil society. Remember the same beliefs that they have also motivate them to help other people, so you have to consider their beliefs in their entirety rather then cherry pick as you have here.

You've heard of the Phelps sect, right? That's off the top of my head.

When the question is why do folks preach then yes it pertains to the topic. NYE, I didn't start the thread, so keep that in mind.

You miss my point. I'm not talking about just you.

I am asking why Christians in general continue to preach hell-fire for unbelievers. It's coercive, especially in an educational setting.

It's the sort of thing that has people, say like PH, prepared to ban religious education.

Well the question has been asked and answered. I don't know where your heart is at NYE, and it is not up to me to judge whether you will go to hell or not.

It is good that you can keep such judgements out of a discussion. It tends to put people off.

Mild annoyance or dhimmitude? I think I'll take mild annoyance under Christian fundamentalists for 200 Alex.

Red herring.

We're not discussing Saudi schools. We're discussing Christian schools in India (and presumably thinking about similar institutions in our own communities).

Please show me where I explicitly say NYE, you are going to hell. I haven't.

In the first post that I responded to you.

I'm sorry if this isn't considered 'respect' or 'toleration' to say that unbelievers will go to hell, but this is the truth.

Such an assertion of 'truth' in a discussion involving many individuals of diverse beliefs is incendiary. There is nothing civil about it.

[Ben Kenobi]

The problem is , they expect every student to conform to a Christian lfestyle , even if they're not Christian .

Well I think the problem would rest in the parents for sending a child who was not a Christian to this school. Like Jon Miller says, these schools are not set up for the purpose of converting unbelievers they are meant to be havens for Christians.

But I'm not talking about the many . Most students won't care , but the few who care and are not Christian are bound to feel stifled in such an atmosphere . If you're studying in a Christian school , you are going to feel intimidated by the prevailing atmosphere is you happen to disagree .

Most children do not choose their school , they are sent there either by their parents or by the state .

True, but what should be happening for schools like this is that the child displays and demonstrates a desire for a more Christian school. Granted this doesn't always happen, but that is because Christian parents would err in sending an unbelieving child to these schools to straighten him out.

The prevailing intellectual amosphere in the country among the English-educated elite ( of which I am a member ) is one where even being a devout Hindu is looked down upon . Hinduism is considered somehow "dirty" . Thus , if you became more devout , you would be laughed at by your own peers .

No different from Canada in this respect. I've found it rather amusing running into this attitude from so many people, and it's refreshing to hear from someone who understands this situation and why it's unhealthy for folks to take such a hostile position.

The question of superiority or inferiority usually does not enter his mind at all .

Interesting. I would not have expected that.

This student said that his teachers bacisally tried to scare him into accepting Christ . As I said before , this usually backfires , and instead of trying to work out , on his own , the kinks in his religious experience , he left religion altogether .

Which is unfortunate.

It is practices associated with religion - such as the Christian sale of indulgences , or the perversions of the Hindu caste system , or the Muslim system of instant triple divorce - which are in fact regressive . If it is possible to separate these practices from the religion without compromising the core dogma of the religion , then it is possible to reform that religion ( as was/is the case with Hinduism , Judaism , Buddhism , etc. ) , whereas if it is difficult to do so , then in that religion there will always exist a tension between regressive and progressive forces ( as in Christainity , as seen today , or in Turkish Islam ) , but if it is impossible to do so , then a religion is beyond reform and will have to be dumped altogether when it becomes too problematic ( as is the case with today's Islam ) .

Interesting that you would cite indulgences. I think you've been listening to a few protestants in their opinions over what constitutes the 'regressive' portion of Christianity. There are as many opinions of this as there are people, which leads me to believe that it's the world that changes rather then the church.

The dominance of the West today is because it was able to critically examine itself . A believer's critical examination usually strengthens the faith , it does not weaken it . When , however , religion is forced on someone , the first time they examine it , it will crack .

Yep, and not only to examine itself in matters of scientific enquiry but also in faith. For the reformers the goal was not to establish a parallel church, but to correct many of the abuses of the church at the time.

At least the liberal fundementalist school which I attended suffered from a complete lack of introspection - maybe because the faith of liberals is so fragile ?

I'll let that point stand.

The problem is , the so-called "secular" ( which usually translates to anti-Hindu ) government will not tolerate even private schools imparting Hindu teachings . Notice that even secular schools run by Hindu organisations are criticises simply because they are run by Hindu organisations , whereas madarsas which have been a proven breeding ground for terror are not even scrutinised .

Now this surprises me. I thought India was an officially hindu state just as Pakistan is official Muslim.

[Ben Kenobi]

You've heard of the Phelps sect, right? That's off the top of my head.

A church of some hundreds rather then the millions of evangelical Christians in the US? I think you can do better then that, NYE.

You miss my point. I'm not talking about just you.

I am asking why Christians in general continue to preach hell-fire for unbelievers. It's coercive, especially in an educational setting.

It's like asking why do Christians preach that Christ loves everyone regardless of their sins, and will forgive them if they repent.

Same topic, but worded just a bit differently. NYE, Christians in general that I know reserve the fire and brimstone for themselves to motivate each other to be in a right standing with God. They don't go out of their way to preach to unbelievers in this fashion as there are other more effective messages.

But if you ask why, I think you ought to be prepared to hear the answer from the Christian that he believes it to be the truth.

Else it's like Few Good Men, you want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

It's the sort of thing that has people, say like PH, prepared to ban religious education.

Which falls prey to my earlier question as to why secular liberalism is considered to be a good ideology while Christianity is considered to be bad. It's just as much of a judgement as you are accusing of the Christians.

Such an assertion of 'truth' in a discussion involving many individuals of diverse beliefs is incendiary. There is nothing civil about it.

Again, it's not civil but it is the accurate presentation of Christian teachings, and why, if you read through my entire post that I make it clear that this same judgment applies to Christians too, that they must have their heart right to Christ, and finishes with saying that many who consider themselves Christian are going to find themselves outside.

So I really don't see why my statement taken in the whole was so incendiary.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


A church of some hundreds rather then the millions of evangelical Christians in the US? I think you can do better then that, NYE.

I know there are other examples, but I don't feel a listing and discussion of them is very productive.

It's like asking why do Christians preach that Christ loves everyone regardless of their sins, and will forgive them if they repent.

Same topic, but worded just a bit differently. NYE, Christians in general that I know reserve the fire and brimstone for themselves to motivate each other to be in a right standing with God. They don't go out of their way to preach to unbelievers in this fashion as there are other more effective messages.

But if you ask why, I think you ought to be prepared to hear the answer from the Christian that he believes it to be the truth.

Else it's like Few Good Men, you want the truth? You can't handle the truth!

And there's the problem. The need felt to proclaim this 'truth' to others outside of the community and, or to use the coercion of brimestone on children to indoctrinate them.

Which falls prey to my earlier question as to why secular liberalism is considered to be a good ideology while Christianity is considered to be bad. It's just as much of a judgement as you are accusing of the Christians.

I don't consider Christianity to be bad, nor do I consider secular liberalism as good per se.

What is bad is having a community where people are so convinced of their 'truth' that they will murder other people because of it.

It's also bad to create environments for indoctrination of children who do not believe to turn them to a brand of fundamentalism. This happens in some Christian schools, AFAIK and from the first post in this thread.

At the same time, secular liberals can be in favour of things that are bad as well. For instance, the idea that people should not be able to send their children to schools that profess a faith. That smacks of many things I am not in favour of, but that some of the blinkered nanny-state advocates are all for.

Again, it's not civil but it is the accurate presentation of Christian teachings, and why, if you read through my entire post that I make it clear that this same judgment applies to Christians too, that they must have their heart right to Christ, and finishes with saying that many who consider themselves Christian are going to find themselves outside.

So I really don't see why my statement taken in the whole was so incendiary.

Christians do not need to express damnation for others in order to be Christians. I've known a number of ministers who if pressed would maintain they do not have a clue what will happen to the great mass of non-Christians. I've even heard a few say that being a Christian is not prerequisite for 'salvation.'

OTOH, there are some schools of thought where the 'truth' is more agressive about the lives, fates, and activities of others. These sects are definitely not contributing to a peaceful society.

What it boils down to, for me, is that there are aspects of certain beliefs that I believe to be hostile to those who do not share the faith. Living in a world, a country, a city, a building... with so many different people, the less cause of friction the better. Simply because no one, or not many, are actively harming others in the name of Christ currently does not mean that harmful aspects of Christian belief and practice, whether potential or actual, should be passed over for comment when they come up.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well I think the problem would rest in the parents for sending a child who was not a Christian to this school. Like Jon Miller says, these schools are not set up for the purpose of converting unbelievers they are meant to be havens for Christians.

True, but what should be happening for schools like this is that the child displays and demonstrates a desire for a more Christian school. Granted this doesn't always happen, but that is because Christian parents would err in sending an unbelieving child to these schools to straighten him out.

As I've already said , I now assign the blame for putting a non-Christian student or an unwilling student on the parents , not on the school .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No different from Canada in this respect. I've found it rather amusing running into this attitude from so many people, and it's refreshing to hear from someone who understands this situation and why it's unhealthy for folks to take such a hostile position.

It stops being amusing , and starts grinding on your nerves after some time . You are one of the few people who understand what being in an intellectual minority is like - most don't have the guts to go against public opinion or the prevailing intellectual fashion . This position is most definitely unhealthy - and I'm working to destroy this unhealthy condition and position every chance I get .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Interesting. I would not have expected that.

His main concern is peacefully reconverting historic Hindu territories back to Hindusim . The rest of the world and what ideas it believes in are not his concern - unless such ideas ( or rather , the people holding these ideas ) threaten India or Hinduism , in which case they must be crushed when they try to attack India .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Which is unfortunate .

But not uncommon . Which is why I think these types of places do more harm than good to Christainity ( or any religion they preach ) in the long run .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Interesting that you would cite indulgences. I think you've been listening to a few protestants in their opinions over what constitutes the 'regressive' portion of Christianity. There are as many opinions of this as there are people, which leads me to believe that it's the world that changes rather then the church.

I mentioned indulgences because that is what our history books teach us , not because of any reading of Protestant literature . I could have equally easily mentioned the Inquisition of witch-burnings , which were far more inhumane . We are taught history wherein all faults within the Church are ascribed to human fallibillity , and our history books are very careful not to criticise the Church or Christainity itself .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Yep, and not only to examine itself in matters of scientific enquiry but also in faith. For the reformers the goal was not to establish a parallel church, but to correct many of the abuses of the church at the time.

Hindu reformers had essentially the same ideas . They advocated equality for women , they preached against the inflexible form of the caste system , they worked against the sati system ( wherein a few widows were burnt on the husband's funeral pyre ) , they basically tried to cleanse Hinduism of the regressive practices it had come to accumulate over the centuries when was ruled over by foreign and hostile imprialist powers like the Islamic rulers or the British .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



I'll let that point stand.

I had thought you would .

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Now this surprises me. I thought India was an officially hindu state just as Pakistan is official Muslim.

Oh no , not at all . Our constitution is a secular one , and guarantees every citizen equality under the law , and freedom to propogate , promote , and practice his own religion ( as long as his religion does not involve breaking some law ) . India has no state religion .

You can see the difference . The Pakistanis have killed or driven away all the Hindus who stayed back in Pakistan . On the other hand , Indian Muslims are probably the only ones who have consistently enjoyed democracy for the past 60 years . I consider this democracy a gift to the Muslims by the Hindus - because usually Muslim countries cannot maintain democracy for long .

[Dr Strangelove]

Aneeshm, in answer to your claim that devout Hindus aren't respected in India you should realise that there are many Christians in the USA who claim that their religion is not respected and that they are discriminated against. I think that we all know that there are Muslims in certain traditional Islamic nations who make the same sort of claim, i.e., that the goverment has been taken over by people hostile to Islam. That doesn't mean that their perception is true. Can you honestly tell me that there are no conservative fundamentalist schools, schools where students are taught that Hinduism is the true path to spiritual salvation to the exclusion of others in India? If you say yes, then I'm going to have to remind you of a certain sect famous for sending saffron clad missionaries into airports around the world.

I doubt you've had contact with enough Protestant churches to appreciate their diversity. There are quite a few that are considerably less sanguine than the group you describe. Don't you have any Anglicans left in India?