Should I let my parents force me into going to church?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is my favorite quote from the Old Testament:

Proverbs 31:6-7:

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

Getting drunk is Biblical!

(I guess I was just born that way...)



Michael

[PDS]

Here is my favorite quote from the Old Testament:

Proverbs 31:6-7:

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.

Getting drunk is Biblical!

(I guess I was just born that way...)

Michael

Even whilst half in the bag, however, don't do what Noah did. Not a good way to get things started "anew" after 40 days of flooding and slaughter.

On a more serious note, an atheist could do worse than studying the Wisdom Books of the Bible.

[Brant Gaede]

I guess kidnapping wasn't a federal crime in the 19th C., but that's the crime that started the episode. Typical ending: Matt shoots the bad guy just when the bad guy is going to do the really bad to cap the bad. I'd guess Matt killed at least 1000 men (and no women) over 20 years of Gunsmoke.

--Brant

you'd think they'd know better, but he had no reputation it seems

[syrakusos]

I was going to say the accumulated wisdom on this thread has blown me away. (And it has.)

But then look what happened...

Michael

Actually, I replied to him privately. I believe that he was looking for something that we failed to deliver. I think that GHS came closest and gave the best advice. I suggest that Evan was disappointed that self-identified "Objectivists" would compromise on religion as we did. Evan probably expected stronger support and to have the encouragement come in the words he needed to deliver to his parents to make his stand. Instead, we waffled.

I find it interesting that Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises believed the same erroneous narrative about the origins and evolution of money. Marx, at least, believed that he had historical evidence. Von Mises, on the other hand, made it up rationalistically, being a Kantian idealist. So, if Evan's parents wanted him to attend a communist rally with them, would we say, "Sure, keep the peace in the family; and, hey, communism is just another way that people try to get along."

Was Christianity bad for mankind, we ask. I believe that some of us are getting soft on mysticism, because we got soft in the middle. We need to rediscover our radical roots. The evidence of wisdom from experience is not found in your willingness to abandon your principles.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We need to rediscover our radical roots. The evidence of wisdom from experience is not found in your willingness to abandon your principles.

Michael,

Your collectivist "we" gives me the willies at times.

I don't think anyone on this thread abandoned their principles. They might have abandoned YOUR principles, but that's another issue.

OL is for thinking through ideas, not for preaching dogma. "correct" behavior, peer nudges (until they become peer pressure and peer shoves) and all the rest of that crap.

If the kid wants to garner moral support to stand up to his folks in the name of an atheistic Objectivist utopia, there are plenty of places in O-Land where he can get that. (As I said, the issue is who is in control, not necessarily religion--religion is merely the wrapper.)

If he was after honest thinking about a thorny issue from different perspectives by people who have found value in Objectivist and libertarian ideas, he came to the right place.

In other words, if he was seeking help to think, to identify correctly so he could judge his situation correctly, he got a plate full. If he was merely harboring a preconceived judgment, a prejudice, and seeking confirmation, he didn't get it.

The bottom line is that it is his life, his mind, his situation, his parents, and he has the unique limited-to-him-and-him-only charge and power to weigh the information and think through his problems before acting--or not. That's his choice and his responsibility, not anyone else's. There are no automatic thinking/judging systems promoted here on OL where you can turn your brain off and just follow someone else--not even Ayn Rand--because if feels better that way.

The epistemological system I promote--and most seem to agree with here--is to identify something correctly before you judge it. Not judge something first, then seek how to back it up while filtering out the parts of reality that don't fit. Look how often identification done with ruthless honesty takes a person out of his (or her) comfort zone, especially when facts go contrary to his expectations.

Speaking of which, now I have to alter my judgment of wisdom on this thread. It stands--that is, up to your post. Then wisdom took a hike and group-think started being preached,

Let me be clear: I am among the "them" in your "we." I am the scapegoat, the non-conformer, the apostate, the individual, the tribal outcast, the person contaminating the purity of the one true philosophy, whatever the hell that means. And proudly so.

Michael

[PDS]

I was going to say the accumulated wisdom on this thread has blown me away. (And it has.)

But then look what happened...

Michael

Actually, I replied to him privately. I believe that he was looking for something that we failed to deliver. I think that GHS came closest and gave the best advice. I suggest that Evan was disappointed that self-identified "Objectivists" would compromise on religion as we did. Evan probably expected stronger support and to have the encouragement come in the words he needed to deliver to his parents to make his stand. Instead, we waffled.

I find it interesting that Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises believed the same erroneous narrative about the origins and evolution of money. Marx, at least, believed that he had historical evidence. Von Mises, on the other hand, made it up rationalistically, being a Kantian idealist. So, if Evan's parents wanted him to attend a communist rally with them, would we say, "Sure, keep the peace in the family; and, hey, communism is just another way that people try to get along."

Was Christianity bad for mankind, we ask. I believe that some of us are getting soft on mysticism, because we got soft in the middle. We need to rediscover our radical roots. The evidence of wisdom from experience is not found in your willingness to abandon your principles.

John Dewey was a commie who probably influenced and destroyed two generations of American youth at the turn of the last century. Does that mean that we should be advising Evan to give his parents the finger and drop out of high school? What you see as a lack of fortitude might instead simply be a touch of humility about what advice to give to 16 year-olds. 16 year-olds have a strange habit of becoming 17 and 18 years-olds, and who among us hasn't seen today's Howard Roark turn into someone quite different in 12 or 24 short months? I would venture to say that the drop out rate for 16 year-old Objectivists is pretty high.

As for the correct Objectivist position on seeking or getting important advice from others, whether where to spend a Sunday morning or what color to dye one's hair, I believe The Fountainhead teaches us as follows: You know, I'm not going to tell you which offer you should accept, because I think in making one's own decisions in life. But you damn well shouldn't ask for advice. You ought to think for yourself. How can you not know what's best for you? You should be independent. You ought to trust yourself. That's what you ought to do -- that's the way you should be. This is a pivotal piece of advice Roark gives Keating (obviously, no intent here to compare Evan to Keating).

May we safely assume that this is the private advice you gave to Evan? Is anything short of this a form of getting "soft in the middle.?"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David,

Maybe I overreacted with Michael, but I want to offer absolute clarity of my views to readers. Anyway, I have e thin skin about someone preaching by trying to lay guilt trips on others.

(I really like a quote from Dr, Albert Ellis--something along the lines of, "Don't you dare should all over me.")

Michael's one of the good guys, though.

He just gets these periodic attacks of Philitis. His finger gets a terrible itch to wag at others in public as subconscious emissions emerge from his mouth: "we Objectivists... we Objectivists... we Objectivists... we... we... we.... we...."

It's probably raining real hard where he's at right now and that might be the reason his Philitis is acting up.

Michael

[anthony]

I was going to say the accumulated wisdom on this thread has blown me away. (And it has.)

But then look what happened...

Michael

Actually, I replied to him privately. I believe that he was looking for something that we failed to deliver. I think that GHS came closest and gave the best advice. I suggest that Evan was disappointed that self-identified "Objectivists" would compromise on religion as we did. Evan probably expected stronger support and to have the encouragement come in the words he needed to deliver to his parents to make his stand. Instead, we waffled.

I find it interesting that Karl Marx and Ludwig von Mises believed the same erroneous narrative about the origins and evolution of money. Marx, at least, believed that he had historical evidence. Von Mises, on the other hand, made it up rationalistically, being a Kantian idealist. So, if Evan's parents wanted him to attend a communist rally with them, would we say, "Sure, keep the peace in the family; and, hey, communism is just another way that people try to get along."

Was Christianity bad for mankind, we ask. I believe that some of us are getting soft on mysticism, because we got soft in the middle. We need to rediscover our radical roots. The evidence of wisdom from experience is not found in your willingness to abandon your principles.

John Dewey was a commie who probably influenced and destroyed two generations of American youth at the turn of the last century. Does that mean that we should be advising Evan to give his parents the finger and drop out of high school? What you see as a lack of fortitude might instead simply be a touch of humility about what advice to give to 16 year-olds. 16 year-olds have a strange habit of becoming 17 and 18 years-olds, and who among us hasn't seen today's Howard Roark turn into someone quite different in 12 or 24 short months? I would venture to say that the drop out rate for 16 year-old Objectivists is pretty high.

As for the correct Objectivist position on seeking or getting important advice from others, whether where to spend a Sunday morning or what color to dye one's hair, I believe The Fountainhead teaches us as follows: You know, I'm not going to tell you which offer you should accept, because I think in making one's own decisions in life. But you damn well shouldn't ask for advice. You ought to think for yourself. How can you not know what's best for you? You should be independent. You ought to trust yourself. That's what you ought to do -- that's the way you should be. This is a pivotal piece of advice Roark gives Keating (obviously, no intent here to compare Evan to Keating).

May we safely assume that this is the private advice you gave to Evan? Is anything short of this a form of getting "soft in the middle.?"

Good post, PDS. (I know it's good when it covers what I wanted to say....)

I've decided it's too fraught with unpredictable consequences, giving advice on such core issues, online. Not enough known. Is Evan a young 16, or a mature, considering, 16?

How are his parents with him, and he to his parents? Do you give him your own experience at that age- and, sheesh, 16 today ain't what it used to be - or load him with principles, true ones of course, but lacking the proper rationale. Etc.

.All I guess is un- learning religion, and learning O'ist egoism (courtesy of Howard Roark) -both at once- could be dangerously exhilarating for a young person. That's why I'm in favor of slowing down and not forcing a stand-off just yet. The parents know now - that's important. There'll be plenty of chances ahead in life to stand for his principles. Evan's on the right track, but he shouldn't run just yet, imo..

[Brant Gaede]

He can now figure it out for himself if he hadn't enough data. In the meantime, we can continue to try.

--Brant

the curse of adulthood: we know too much

[anthony]

He can now figure it out for himself if he hadn't enough data. In the meantime, we can continue to try.

--Brant

the curse of adulthood: we know too much

He can now figure it out for himself if he hadn't enough data. In the meantime, we can continue to try.

--Brant

the curse of adulthood: we know too much

Yup. He got a spread of thoughts to mull over. Best he can take out is the unanimous counsel to keep thinking for himself.

(That he isn't alone, either.)

[We Erred Rand]

>>>But now, they want me to go to church for Easter . . . should I let them force me into going?

You appear to be claiming that your parents' desire to have you join them at church for Easter is a form of coercion against you. Did they threaten you? Did they issue an ultimatum?

It doesn't sound like it.

>>>They paid for a ticket at the dinner as well...

You're turning down free food (not to mention the chance to meet some hot Catholic girls)? You have a lot to learn.

(If it will help matters any, tell your mom and dad that I'd be perfectly willing go in your place. Should I bring my yarmulka?)

[We Erred Rand]

@Ghs: >>>At 16 you may not legally be an "adult," but you are certainly an adult in terms of your ability to make reasoned decisions.

Do you know the kid personally? You mean, automatically, just by virtue of biological age, the ability to make reasoned decisions "kicks in"? I don't think so. Additionally, how do you know this was a reasoned decision and not simply some spur-of-the-moment whim, as in "I just don't feel like going"? Most teenagers make most of their decisions in this manner; what makes you so sure that Evan isn't doing so also? Just because he claims to have read the Fountainhead?

>>>Moreover, even the legitimate rights of parents do not include the right to violate the conscience of their children.

Saying to Evan, "Son, we'd really like for you to join us at church on Easter" is, in your view, a violation of their son's conscience?

>>>Your parents are wrong, in other words, pure and simple.

Evan's parents are WRONG (morally?) for WANTING him to join them at church during Easter?

>>>It is difficult for an outsider to give advice in this matter, but here is what I would do.

Notice, please, Evan, the use of the first-person-singular: "Here is what I would do." Let's see if he's able to maintain this:

>>>1) I would make it clear that you view being pressured to go to church as a violation of your conscience,

(Ahem) I would make it clear that I view being pressured to go to church as a violation of my conscience.

>>>and that as Christians they should understand and respect this principle. You respect their decisions in this matter, and they should respect yours.

(Ahem) I respect their decisions in this matter, and they should respect mine.

>>>You might even ask them to consult their minister in this matter and ask his advice.

(Ahem) I might even ask them to consult their minister in this matter and ask their advice.

>>>Many Christian ministers -- the intelligent and conscientious ones, at least -- would counsel them to respect your decision.

(Ahem) Many Christian ministers . . . would counsel them to respect my decision.

[That last statement is a riot. Yes, I can see it now:

"Minister, our son doesn't want to join us at church for Easter. What should we do?"

"Well, let's see. Has he read The Fountainhead?"

"Why, yes, we believe he has. Why do you ask?"

"It has been my experience that when an adolescent of the male sex has read The Fountainhead and responded positively to it — and by 'positively', I don't just mean masturbating furiously over the rape scene, but actually grasping the deeper meaning of individualism and integrity comprising much of the theme of that great novel (and please, please! Don't misunderstand me! I'm not saying that he shouldn't masturbate furiously over the rape scene! God forbid! I would never dare to interfere...I mean, when I read the novel as an adolescent and I began to furiously... I mean, well, never mind...), to continue: I have found that adolescent men, that is, teenage boys, appear to be fully in control of their cognitive faculties, and completely able to make informed, mature, reasoned decisions. So if he wants to stay home on Easter, do not violate his conscience by enticing him with the promise of free food, and cajoling him with the possibility of a romantic liaison (perhaps even a tryst) with one of our juicy, nubile female church members. That would be morally wrong, plain and simple. Respect his rationally-informed wishes and let him stay at home."

"Thank you, minister! That was a great help, and eased our burden considerably. God bless you!"

"You're most welcome! By the way, what did your son plan on doing during that time while you two are attending Easter service?"

"He told us that he wants to reread the rape scene in The Fountainhead.]

* * * * * * * * * *

See that, Evan? Even when someone claims not to pressure you by saying "It is difficult for an outsider to give advice in this matter, but here is what I would do", he reveals (by unwittingly switching pronouns) that he's really telling you what to do. Don't you find that fascinating?

He does...I mean, they do...I mean, I do.

[syrakusos]

I received a reply from Evan. I will not quote it, as such communications belong to the writer, but I will say that we all were shooting in the dark. None of the issues we imagined applied to his context. I just re-read The Fountainhead for the first time in perhaps 20 years, if not more. The copy on my shelf is a collector's piece, so I borrowed a library book to read. The Plume edition from 1994 carries an essay that Rand wrote in 1968 explaining some of the statements about religion. For instance, coached by Ellsworth Toohey, Hopton Stoddard tells Howard Roark that he (Stoddard) can see that Roark is a religious person in his own way. Here on OL is a discussion on Ayn Rand's letter to Reverend Dudley: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11147

And here is the eBay listing that displays the original letter.

The discussion here also provides the same links. The salient point is that Rand identified Christianity as the first religion to be considered with the individual as a being of free will. She also identified the altruist ethics of Christianity as a contradiction to its "individualist" foundation.

Further elucidation comes from one of the published Letters.

The following excerpt is from a letter to Sylvia Austin dated July 9, 1946, in Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 287:

There is a great, basic contradiction in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism -- the inviolate sanctity of man's soul, and the salvation of one's soul as one's first concern and highest goal; this means -- one's ego and the integrity of one's ego. But when it came to the next question, a code of ethics to observe for the salvation of one's soul -- (this means: what must one do in actual practice in order to save one's soul?) -- Jesus (or perhaps His interpreters) gave men a code of altruism, that is, a code which told them that in order to save one's soul, one must love or help or

live for

others. This means, the subordination of one's soul (or ego) to the wishes, desires or needs of others, which means the subordination of one's soul to the souls of others.

This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice, while they have preached it in theory for two thousand years. The reason of their failure was not men's natural depravity or hypocrisy, which is the superficial (and vicious) explanation usually given. The reason is that a contradiction cannot be made to work. That is why the history of Christianity has been a continuous civil war -- both literally (between sects and nations), and spiritually (within each man's soul).

All emphasis was in the original. All punctuation and spelling is from the original.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus.html

[We Erred Rand]

>>> This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice

"All" men? "Most" men? "Some" men?

It's an unusually opaque statement for her. She seems almost intentionally to avoid specifying what, precisely, she meant.

In any case, we could easily do the same (by means of the same opacity of meaning) by claiming that men have never succeeded in applying Objectivism in practice. "All"? "Most"? "Some"? I don't know. I do know that I personally have never met anyone who has succeeded in applying Objectivism in practice; though I have met many who have claimed that they and only they have hewed to the true Objectivist Way.

[studiodekadent]

I am 16, and have been an Atheist ever since first reading The Fountainhead 2 years ago. I have told my parents before but they seemed to just let it go as a childhood passing. But now, they want me to go to church for Easter and I have told them I do not want to go. They paid for a ticket at the dinner as well, and I told them that I would pay for the ticket if I didn't have to go. Since I am still a minor should I let them force me into going? I really find it harmful to me.

I recommend taking George H. Smith's earlier advice, but if I were to be a little more hostile...

1) Clearly and forcefully state your position without diplomacy. Tell your parents about your bottomless well of loathing for the Servile Carpenter Religion and add in some additional blasphemy (I recommend graphic descriptions of performing Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX) abortions on the pregnant Virgin Mary, but really anything works).

2) Do not back down. Force them to either acquiesce or coerce you.

3) If they coerce you, limit your participation in the way GHS describes and make sure your parents know they are forcing you and that you will not be forgiving them for this, ever.

4) Rinse and repeat. Either they keep coercing you (and thus deal with guilt and angst over their hellbound child, which is a great way to make them feel some of the distress you're feeling) or they back off.

[Selene]

Andrew:

...that you will not be forgiving them for this, ever.

I disagree with any statement that declares proscriptive action, especailly with people that we are close with.

For example, what it they apologized and stated at some future date that they were wrong in their current positiion?

A...

[studiodekadent]

Andrew:

...that you will not be forgiving them for this, ever.

I disagree with any statement that declares proscriptive action, especailly with people that we are close with.

For example, what it they apologized and stated at some future date that they were wrong in their current positiion?

A...

You make a good point. If it helps, you know by now I am... rather harsh... when dealing with religion/matters relating to it.

If, in the future, the parents who had once coerced their child apologize, then I guess the child should be compensated somehow. Perhaps the child should tally up the hours forcibly imprisoned in church and then, when the parents apologize, demand the parents do something they don't want to do for an equal amount of time.

That said, I apologize if I was unclear but I was intending to suggest that the parents be TOLD they won't be forgiven. The child can still forgive, but pretending there won't be any is a good weapon to use when one has to counter things like Guilt Trips From Mother.

Or perhaps I'm just indulging in my usual "being mean towards Christianity when its Easter time" habit. That's possible too.

[Selene]

Andrew:

...that you will not be forgiving them for this, ever.

I disagree with any statement that declares proscriptive action, especailly with people that we are close with.

For example, what it they apologized and stated at some future date that they were wrong in their current positiion?

A...

You make a good point. If it helps, you know by now I am... rather harsh... when dealing with religion/matters relating to it.

Or perhaps I'm just indulging in my usual "being mean towards Christianity when its Easter time" habit. That's possible too.

Lol..No sweat, let's say that I have mellowed over the last few decades, and, I, having made more than enough mistakes myself, am more capable of keeping my bridges standing and not in flames.

Believe me, I understand where you are coming from about the Catholic church.

I still love you and you have a great mind.

A...

[studiodekadent]

Andrew:

...that you will not be forgiving them for this, ever.

I disagree with any statement that declares proscriptive action, especailly with people that we are close with.

For example, what it they apologized and stated at some future date that they were wrong in their current positiion?

A...

You make a good point. If it helps, you know by now I am... rather harsh... when dealing with religion/matters relating to it.

Or perhaps I'm just indulging in my usual "being mean towards Christianity when its Easter time" habit. That's possible too.

Lol..No sweat, let's say that I have mellowed over the last few decades, and, I, having made more than enough mistakes myself, am more capable of keeping my bridges standing and not in flames.

Believe me, I understand where you are coming from about the Catholic church.

I still love you and you have a great mind.

A...

My thanks!

[PDS]

>>> This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice

"All" men? "Most" men? "Some" men?

It's an unusually opaque statement for her. She seems almost intentionally to avoid specifying what, precisely, she meant.

In any case, we could easily do the same (by means of the same opacity of meaning) by claiming that men have never succeeded in applying Objectivism in practice. "All"? "Most"? "Some"? I don't know. I do know that I personally have never met anyone who has succeeded in applying Objectivism in practice; though I have met many who have claimed that they and only they have hewed to the true Objectivist Way.

I don't find her meaning opaque at all. I think not a small number of Sunday morning ministers would agree with her. Nobody has been perfect since Jesus himself, right?

Rand, as usual, was making extrapolations that were really quite prescient in anticipating some of the scholarship of the last 50 years about the Wisdom tradition behind much of Jesus's teachings, as well as the flimsy relation of "original sin" to Jesus's teachings (contra his interpreteres, such as Tertulllian or Augustine).

I also think she was on the mark about the conflict between altruism and the individualism inherent in his teachings, but probably could have been more clear about the role of the Church, as opposed to the teachings of Jesus, in creating that conflict.

Honestly, I have always found the above letter one of the more fascinating pieces of Rand's writings. Right up there with Fransisco's money speech.

[syrakusos]

You're turning down free food (not to mention the chance to meet some hot Catholic girls)?

He never specified his religion.

1) Clearly and forcefully state your position without diplomacy. Tell your parents about your bottomless well of loathing for the Servile Carpenter Religion and add in some additional blasphemy....

Bad advice. You encourage him into a conflict to suffer consequences that you cannot anticipate, and which you will not share.

This is why men have never succeeded in applying Christianity in practice.

"All" men? "Most" men? "Some" men?

It's an unusually opaque statement for her. She seems almost intentionally to avoid specifying what, precisely, she meant.

It is metaphysically impossible to apply Christian (altruist) ethics and survive. No one has done it. In every case of a predominantly altruist society existing and enduring - monasteries whether Catholic or Buddhist, just for example - the source of the success was the compromise of individual virtues of intelligence and productivity expropriated by the community and also of "trade" with the outside world in the form of donations and gifts. They also traded in the positive sense, producing goods such as beer and wine for sale. But even so, consider, for instance the old USSR whose gold mines were worked by political prisoners. The "success" of communism was based on the wide application of that principle. So, too, with all altruist societies. At root, no altruistic person has ever consistently applied that morality and lived to tell about it. It is metaphysically impossible.

Do you have a counter-example?

[tmj]

I'm not sure how atheist a 16 yr old can really be. A mature reasoned person can explain the integrations required to understand that atheism is a point of view that comes from an explicit integrated understanding of philosophic axioms. But proir to such integration proclaiming atheism has a more rebellious tinge. My 'formative' years were spent in an a-religious household, as far I can remember religion was never even discussed. I do not think that situation stemmed from any kind of intellectual stance on the part of my parents, and I do not remember asking questions of them on the subject. I do remember 'celebrating the eucharist' a few times, but only because I had spent the night at my catholic friends houses and going to church with them the next day and simply not being stopped from getting in line, I remember being curious about what the wafers tasted like oh yeah and you get wine. I did wonder if on entering a church if or whether I would experience some spiritual call or some such, but not surprised that I hadn't.

I do not think simple exposure to religious ceremonies or rites are harmful or dangerous to thinking individuals, unless those rites include things akin to proving faith by handling serpents or the like.

There is a danger though in the indoctrination of children with religious teachings, but I think it is fair to say that a teenager that identifies as atheist has not been indoctrinated.

[anthony]

Some timely perspective - well said, tmj.

[Mike82ARP]

I'm not sure how atheist a 16 yr old can really be. A mature reasoned person can explain the integrations required to understand that atheism is a point of view that comes from an explicit integrated understanding of philosophic axioms. But proir to such integration proclaiming atheism has a more rebellious tinge. My 'formative' years were spent in an a-religious household, as far I can remember religion was never even discussed. I do not think that situation stemmed from any kind of intellectual stance on the part of my parents, and I do not remember asking questions of them on the subject. I do remember 'celebrating the eucharist' a few times, but only because I had spent the night at my catholic friends houses and going to church with them the next day and simply not being stopped from getting in line, I remember being curious about what the wafers tasted like oh yeah and you get wine. I did wonder if on entering a church if or whether I would experience some spiritual call or some such, but not surprised that I hadn't.

I do not think simple exposure to religious ceremonies or rites are harmful or dangerous to thinking individuals, unless those rites include things akin to proving faith by handling serpents or the like.

There is a danger though in the indoctrination of children with religious teachings, but I think it is fair to say that a teenager that identifies as atheist has not been indoctrinated.

I agree with your assessment. Evan read The Fountainhead at 14. In my experience as a parent, youth group leader, and high school teacher, I can attest that 14 year olds are knuckleheads when it comes to philosophical acumen. While they may be intelligent and get good grades, they lack the experience for this level of analysis. But since MEM informed us that Evan said we were “all shooting in the dark”, I get the impression that Evan really doesn’t know where his head is.

RE: your last statement about indoctrination. Having admittedly grown up in an areligious home, how did you come to this conclusion? Would this apply to indoctrination in Objectivism? Personally, I’m against indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

While religious indoctrination in the past may have had some bad consequences, people of my generation and later have a pretty healthy dose of skepticism and question pretty much everything including their religious upbringing. Most adult Christians do not remain the same church as their upbringing.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... since MEM informed us that Evan said we were “all shooting in the dark”, I get the impression that Evan really doesn’t know where his head is....

Mike,

I'm not even sure this kid exists. He made his plea for help (or was it a whine ) and simply has not bothered to say anything more--not even to thank people for answering him.

I learned my manners in a different place.

The kid came here. Nobody went where he was. I mean, what does anyone around here owe a stranger? Does he own this place all of a sudden? What kind of person shows up, uses the resources he doesn't own, asks for help from a community he doesn't yet belong to (except for signing up), then remains silent?

After running a forum for several years, I'll tell you what kind. Someone who is playing with the members.

So may he live long and happy if he is who he says he is. But a long ways from here. So long as he remains MIA, I think he wasted our time and I've lost my interest in him.

Besides, the crazy lady's sidekick (most likely) has been bopping around under a new moniker and she likes to set up fake accounts. This thread is her kind of stunt.

In my experience, if the kid exists and behaves like on this thread, i.e., he starts a thread asking for help, but does not acknowledge the replies after a reasonable time, then he's most likely a snotty little thing with a sense of entitlement. (I speak from experience.)

Growing up is hard work...

But I don't think he exists. I favor the stunt by the crazy lady (even if it is a bit subtle for her)...

Michael