Study: Religion is good for kids
posted at 4:06 pm on April 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Well, I guess if any one of the three of us adults here at HA was going to be childless, it’s a good thing it’s me. I wipe my tears with my surfeit of disposable income.
Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development…
The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.
Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills… Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience… Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said.
They don’t have any data about denominational differences, but if the Catholic household I grew up in is representative then it sure ain’t Catholics who are dragging this average up. Exit question one: Isn’t the real lesson here that religion spares parents from pounding headaches? Exit question two: WWRDD?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »
Richard Dawkins has a religion, silly.
Lehosh on April 24, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Correction: Religions other than radical Islam are good for kids. Radical Islam tends to result in dead or orphaned kids more often than not.
aero on April 24, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Then how do we explain all those “disaffected youths” in France?
Blacklake on April 24, 2007 at 4:18 PM
As long as you only use one bill for each wiping.
RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Actually, this makes perfect sense. All religions are, at their core, methods of brainwashing and totalitarian control. And frankly, when you have young kids, you have to be totalitarian.
I grew up believing that there was this guy named “God” who I couldn’t see and I couldn’t talk to, but he could read my mind and was constantly judging me. My parents seemed to believe in this “God” fellow, so I had no choice but to believe it. And I’ll bet it contributed to me being very well behaved.
But then I grew up and left God behind. Because He was never there to begin with, except as a way to keep me in line.
There’s got to be a way to control children without instilling an irrational fear of invisible beings. Maybe it’s time to bring back spankings.
In any case, the main point I got out of the article is that Religion is for children.
Of course, that’s the point I would get, isn’t it? :)
Enrique on April 24, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Hardcore, dude.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Nah, I got burned out on the last religion thread.
JayHaw Phrenzie on April 24, 2007 at 4:25 PM
I could have saved the people who did this study time and money.
Crab Pot on April 24, 2007 at 4:25 PM
If you are happy about the results of this research then I ask: what will you say when they start researching which particular religion is the best for kids?
starflyer on April 24, 2007 at 4:25 PM
By the way, everyone I knew who grew up Catholic is now a de facto atheist. If Dawkins were really shrewd, he’d suggest that all children be brought up Catholic. It would be like an ATHEIST ASSEMBLY LINE.
Enrique on April 24, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Especially if it’s that “Religion of Peace”:
Just out on WorldNetDaily …
Bring it on baby! Bring it on!
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I grew up Catholic and now attend a non-denominational protestant church.
Um…after spending a few years as an agnostic.
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing this for sure, but it’s good to see that you have “faith” Enrique.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Or the principles contained there in, when followed create better children and citizens…
Nah can’t be that.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Chances are the good kids will grow up to be good adults.No? Hey if Dawkins and his followers wants to take a walk in the woods then I say have at it. I’m with Billo on this one I’ll stay with the tried and true. It works for me. I think the only other path I would trek would be that of an indigenous people. ie; American Indians, Polynesians,Eskimos those types. Kinda late for that now.
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Hmmm . . . raised Catholic and shock–I’m still Catholic!
No totalitarian brain washing. No dictatorial imposition. In fact, I’ve become more orthodox as an adult. My mother was taught by nuns, and felt very hostile to the Church for a long time. Others I’ve heard from that were taught by nuns had the same experience.
It is not Catholicism, its the nuns!
elpresidente on April 24, 2007 at 4:38 PM
It’s okay, Enrique, you don’t exist to God either.
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Exit question #3: should atheists take their kids to church and not argue about religion just so they’ll behave and be well adjusted and have better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning?
jdpaz on April 24, 2007 at 4:40 PM
I do have a deep and abiding fear of nuns.
The Sound of Music is a horror film, as far as I’m concerned.
Slublog on April 24, 2007 at 4:40 PM
That’s because being a Catholic is heavy on tradition, and not so much with the personal relationship with Jesus. The vast majority of people who call themselves “Catholic” are only Catholic because they are born in to a family that was. They show up at church on Christmas and Easter, say “God bless you” when someone sneezes and call it a day. (Note: I don’t think “church” is a requirement to be a good Christian, I just recognize that there are a lot of Catholics who think that showing up at Church on the “important holidays” somehow scores them enough points to keep them Catholic). There are some Catholics who devote their life to their religion, but they are few and far between when you’re talking about the group that calls themselves Catholics.
Anyway, the point is, it’s the lack of a foundation that causes Catholics to stray. They wake up one day and recognize a lot of the silliness that went on in their church, but they’ve been mislead that “all religions are the same”, so they don’t seek out answers from other Christian denominations or anything, they just become atheists.
RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Richard Dawkins wants everyone to brainwash their kids to be good little atheists.
Rose on April 24, 2007 at 4:49 PM
(Ignoring the usual predictable religion/anti-religious stupidity from all the usual predictable suspects)
Interesting study but it leaves some questions:
Is it the religion that’s good for the parents and thus be extension for the kids, or is the religion directly beneficial?
Is it a secondary effect of other forces that correlate with religion? For example, if a higher percentage of people the study defines as “religious” are in stable, two parent families – isn’t the “religion” more the symptom rather than the cause?
Or is it self-selecting? In other words, maybe the people who are more likely to regularly go to Church are also more likely to provide a stable home and raise happy kids?
Not that I’m questioning the benefit of benevolent religion, but the study raises more questions than it answers.
For what it’s worth, I suspect you’d find that parents who do ANYTHING on a regular, consistent basis – any healthy hobby or activity – especially if they do it as a family or a couple – probably have much healthier and happier kids.
Professor Blather on April 24, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I wish O’reilly had asked him some intelligent questions last night. like, “how does science say you get life from non-life” or “How in science can you justify order from chaos”
jp on April 24, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Yes Enrique, like liberalism you are just a cosmic happenstance.
GT on April 24, 2007 at 4:51 PM
No you’re not. Enrique says so.
Using the exact same logic as liberals everywhere who declared in November 2004: “George Bush CAN’T have won the election …. nobody *I* know voted for him!”
Sophomoric.
Professor Blather on April 24, 2007 at 4:51 PM
WWRDD: He’d get blustery and antagonistic, not have a coherent reason for his belief, and pat himself on the back for being sooo smart.
jdpaz on April 24, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Oh he could have taken Dawkins to a lot of places, but there are time limits, and frankly I just don’t know that O’Reilly is well versed enough to have done it.
RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Not to threadjack or anything, but aren’t you just a little too excited over increased hostilities? I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt though.
Nah, bringing up children in faith assists in teaching structure and self-discipline as well as proper social skills. But the lessons aren’t anything that can’t be replaced by other activities as well.
SouthernDem on April 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM
I think that in families where the parents actually live the dictates of the Christian faith (love one another, patience, forgiveness, etc.) the kind of environment exists that is good for kids, providing them with the example of the proper way to treat other people.
Rose on April 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Didn’t Richard Dawkins host Family Feud?
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 4:53 PM
See, that’s what I’m looking for in a religion. A pissy, juvenile deity that deserts me as soon as I show any doubt. Sign me up!
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM
That’s basically correct. But also, since Vatican II, a lot of liberal elements gained strength in the Church and tried to water everything down. Although the doctrine didn’t change (thanks to the Pope), the people who taught the teachings were often not true believers in the faith. Thus, you’d often get priests who fight for homosexual marriage or the consecration of women as priests, both of which are fundamentally incompatible with the faith.
Under JP2 and Benedict, the tide is turning and hopefully the generation of dissenters will eventually die out. A new orthodoxy is under way in the Church, and hopefully it will change things.
Finally, don’t forget that most athiests reserve a particular loathing for the Catholic church. They hate it because it won’t budge.
Sydney Carton on April 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Uh … link? Evidence? Support? Anything?
Show me something that says “the vast majority” of Catholics, etc.
Good luck with that.
Jesus. Did I type dailykos.com by accident?
Those of you old enough to drive a car might consider avoiding ridiculous sweeping generalizations, or – if you just have to toss out conclusions like that – maybe backing it up with evidence.
Good luck.
Professor Blather on April 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Ben Franklin weeps at the prospect of having to pull “Sheryl Crow” duty.
Kid from Brooklyn on April 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM
You and Occam would get along well.
Professor Blather on April 24, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I think your right about that, he doesn’t sound like someone that is intellectually curious about his faith. He’s just taking the basic, cafeteria line, style of argument.
jp on April 24, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Went from a Presbyterian upbringing (doomed to perdition straight off the bat) to being agnostic, until I had kids. Then it made sense to me to be certain that we went to church (Catholic for those interested) regularly and that we talk about God and Things Religious. Why? Because it is only when they experience and learn these things, these underpinnings of Western Civilization that they will begin to understand how a larger part of the world works.
And when the children get older, if they decide that being Catholic is not for them, fine. They will still have that knowledge.
The problem is that while I want them (the kids) to begin to understand some of the Larger Mysteries (We as parents get the most input), our priest seems to have a Leftist bent… recently called for an end to a certain “quagmire” and urged us to watch “An Inconvenient Truth,” which nearly brought me out of the pew to ask him which church he really belonged to… but that’s another conversations.
zs57 (ookina tsubasa)
zenstudent57 on April 24, 2007 at 4:56 PM
You deny him, he denies you. Why would he want a pissy, juvenile unbeliever?
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Tanya, nevermind MF.
“how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!”
jdpaz on April 24, 2007 at 4:58 PM
It didn’t work that way for Thomas. What makes you so sure it works that way for anyone else? You know better than your god, huh?
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 5:00 PM
First you have nothing then nothing explodes.
Yes that explains everything.
.
Do I feel better about myself if I come from monkeys or Knowing I was created by an all powerful all knowing God.
.
Let me ponder on that for a for a while.
abinitioadinfinitum on April 24, 2007 at 5:02 PM
How clearly self-focued of you such a perfectly secular way.
At least you’re honest about it. I give you credit for that.
Lawrence on April 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Guy, it’s called growing up in the northeast where Catholicism dominates and most people come from catholic French-Canadian backgrounds. You ask anyone around here if they’re Catholic and most will tell you yes. Then ask them anything about the Bible or attempt to engage them in a discussion about their religion, why their priests are powerful enough to bless things, make holy water, why they pray to Mary and the saints, why they confess to a priest, etc. when other Christian denominations don’t and most aren’t going to have a clue. Now you can get mad because I say “most” without evidence, this is simply experience. You quoted me out of context, so you’re missing one point. It’s entirely different if you’re talking about the people who go to their Catholic Church every week for decades… They are devoted and (hopefully, but still not in a lot of cases) have asked these questions rather than followed the leader. But that’s different. The devoted Catholic that goes to church every week is just a fraction of the bunch. The majority are the show up on holiday types. I know this because it’s going on around me.
RightWinged on April 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM
That about sums it up.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Indeed.
Lawrence on April 24, 2007 at 5:05 PM
There’s quite a bit of empirical scientific evidence to show that he’d pound Garrison in his monkey hole.
ScottMcC on April 24, 2007 at 5:07 PM
My Bible says that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (including you -ed) that Jesus is Lord. You may recall that Thomas did that in the end.
But I didn’t mean to make you angry. I mean, if someone told me that the Easter Bunny didn’t care about me, I’d shrug and say, “Groovy.”
Dost thou protest too much?
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I apologize for my surfeit of disposable income. All parents are better people than I. (Especially the bad parents!)
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 5:11 PM
What Catholic priest Martin Luther did when his reason and spirit rebelled against church teachings and common (conventional wisdom) church habits was to go back to the Scriptures and read them for himself. He discovered it was infinitely better than he’d been led to believe.
What did Augustine say he heard? “Open and read.”
There is nothing stopping Catholics, lasped or not or anyone else to read. Unless, one is in a totalitarian country where reading the Bible is considered dangerous to the fascist overlords and thus is banned. Curious.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Not to offend any Catholics but you have to call a thing what it is. I know exactly zero Catholics that are bible reading adherants to the word. Most Catholics i know are ex-Catholic atheists or Deists. The Catholic church is structured like a coporation and smoothered in hypocrisy. *shrug8 The results are predictable. I see the same thing in old Black churches. Gray haris and teenagers and the church is totally dead. Enrique and Allah should try going to a church that is alive.
Theworldisnotenough on April 24, 2007 at 5:11 PM
We know you’re an atheist, Allah, I mean you take great pains to state as much in the blog, but why get into a snit because a study indicates that religious upbringing is a positive thing?
Believe in God or not, Allah, but don’t begrudge those of us who do.
clark smith on April 24, 2007 at 5:11 PM
I’m not in a snit. The “heart-ache” thing is always used ironically.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 5:14 PM
From an atheist website, a poem that proves that athiest poetry is as horrible as evangelical rock’n'roll:
Someone’s creative writing teacher needs to repent.
ccwbass on April 24, 2007 at 5:16 PM
But Thomas wasn’t abandoned when he doubted.
I’m fascinated by religion, but I’ve never understood why anyone would want to believe in a cruel god. That seems like an painful place to put your faith, to me. But, to each his own.
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Hello all, I’m a long time reader of HotAir, but I’m a newly registered commenter.
Thank you, HotAir tea, for reopening registration!
Whenever someone speaks of God only being a fake reason to behave it makes me wonder if that person is a law abiding citizen. Not to say that Enrique isn’t. But, could someone please explain to me why there is any reason to behave at all, if there is no authority figure beyond the ones that exist on earth.
I don’t think I’ve spoken to anyone with an adequate answer to this question. If there’s no life after death, then what’s the purpose of living?
I really am curious. Enrique, AP, could you please explain it to me?
j_ehman on April 24, 2007 at 5:22 PM
LOL! Yes, and you just held God accountable for something Matticus Finch said. Makes sense.
A very small understanding of the Christian Faith would indicate that God would not desert us for losing faith. But alas, this is what happens when those who know nothing about a topic dare to speak.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 5:23 PM
It has become a bit of a trademark for you, and a big hint. And even Enrique had a smiley face on his post.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Yes! I do get excited every time I see a real possibility that someone might actually stand up to Islam. I’m hoping for the best, which would be the complete devastation of Hamas.
And before we move on … can we get something else out of the way? Last week you attacked me for assuming you’re a Democrat. Unfortunately, before I had a chance to ask this question, the thread was shut down. I’m wondering, if you’re NOT a Democrat, why you would be using a screen name of “SouthernDem” and how I would possibly come to any other conclusion? I believe your comments speak for themselves, but it’s tough to see past the screen name.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 5:29 PM
That’s why Devi has never been of interest or Quezlcoatl or Baal, the child-consumer, to give a few examples of alternatives.
What’s so cruel about this: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul and your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.
Valid anywhere, with anyone, of any nation and any tribe. As valid today as it was yesterday, and will be valid tomorrow.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:31 PM
I don’t get the cruel part? How is God cruel? You don’t mean the moon god Allah do you? I see the blessings of our world, our lives, the sacrifice of Jesus as nothing but love from God for His creation.
Example please. Just asking. And curious.
CrimsonFisted on April 24, 2007 at 5:32 PM
I wish O’reilly had asked him some intelligent questions last night. like, “how does science say you get life from non-life” or “How in science can you justify order from chaos”
jp on April 24, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I noticed that too. I figure O’Reiley needed to maintain controll of the conversation (debate), so as not to give RD a platform to expond on his views. Bill laid burden of proof squarley on Dawkins shoulders who didn’t answer the question but attempted to do the same to Billo and failed. I mean c’mon take man out of the equation and ask yourself how does this big beautiful planet maintain it’s beauty? Have you evey seen a tropical reef? Did all that symetry just appear from nothing? I heard Billo refer to a higher power. There’s a saying that goes the only thing you need to know about God is YOU AIN”T HIM!
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Yes. I believe the results of a similar study in, say, the Palestinian territories, would be quite the oppostite of Judeo-Christian society.
infidel4life on April 24, 2007 at 5:34 PM
expound (sp)
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Follow the thread back, guys. The line that started this was “It’s okay, Enrique, you don’t exist to God either.”
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 5:35 PM
The commentary accompanying the cited quote seemed to treat Bartkowski’s assertions with sarcasm, not irony.
clark smith on April 24, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Allah, I don’t believe in Atheist. How about that? But I love them! Maybe one day you’ll take a motorcycle ride with your brother and by the end of the trip you will be a Chirstian like C S Lewis. Speaking of the Inklings I heard that a Tolkien relative recently finsihed a book that JR had been writing for 30-40 years but never finished. Based it on notes and unfished parts.
Drtuddle on April 24, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Tanya, I didn’t mean that to sound as brutal as it did. Sorry. After reading it back, it came across differently than I intended.
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 5:39 PM
I don’t know ’bout this one. My daughters are being raised in a non-religious, non-church environment and they are quite well behaved. So well behaved that people compliment my wife and myself on what a great job we are doing raising them.
I’m going out on a limb here and saying that there are multiple reasons why some children are better behaved than others. Perhaps simply the act of going to church as a family has more to do with it?
Once we get a gander at the methodology, I suspect that there will be plenty more debate to be had. After reading the story, the author thinks the same thing.
Krydor on April 24, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Re: WWRDD?
He’d argue that there are alternatives to church attendance that could produce the same benefits.
I’d like to see the results after they control for denomination. For the sake of argument, what if it turns out practicing Wiccans have the best-behaved kids? Would you consider converting?
RightOFLeft on April 24, 2007 at 5:40 PM
clark smith, are you one of the new guys? Welcome, and you’ll catch on to what’s snark and what’s irony after a while.
jdpaz on April 24, 2007 at 5:41 PM
But … but … but … I thought W’s parents were religious! How, then, do we explain W?
Wait … he’s the exception that disproves the rule! I get it now!!
CountAgion on April 24, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Thanks for that. :o)
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Still, that was MF talking, not God.
Checked the link from Allah to Richard Dawkins. He makes his first chapter available. And some quotes.
Yeesh! He is a tabloid understanding of theology, doncha think?
Huh? Apparently he has never read the Bible. Jesus CONSTANTLY answered questions, and encouraged people to ASK questions.
CrimsonFisted on April 24, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Dawkins is an arrogant and generally belligerent jerk, and if he thinks he’s doing secularism any favors by propping himself up like some angry opposition Pope, he’s profoundly mistaken.
But that’s beside the point. “Science” is just a methodology; it isn’t a person or a text, and as such doesn’t “say” anything. So I suppose the correct (intelligent?) formulation of those questions would be “How did life emerge?” and “How did order emerge?” And in response to those questions, a scientist familiar with studies in the related fields would presumably say “We don’t really know.”
As there’s a great deal people don’t know, both collectively and individually, I don’t quite see how admitting as much can serve as any sort of indictment. Indeed, not knowing seems utterly inherent to the human condition–hence our tendancy to ask all these pesky questions in the first place. So how, then, are the questions offered above especially clever?
Blacklake on April 24, 2007 at 5:46 PM
I’m sayin’.
Jaibones on April 24, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Oh, that wasn’t a joke after all?
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:46 PM
But not generally about the world. The Sermon on the Mount, after all, wasn’t about geology.
Blacklake on April 24, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Open registration? Woo-hoo! :P
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:48 PM
I’d love to have a religious discussion with you, Tanya, and I could tell you how my life was changed by my loving God and how, as imperfect as I am, he embraced me…but you wouldn’t believe me because you deny even the possibility that God exists. And I was wrong to have been so presumptive of whether God has elected you and/or Enrique or not. But God does exist in my life.
So, if you were me, Tanya, and you knew that God existed as much as your mother exists (or existed, depending on circumstances) to you, would you not defend Him when people call him non-existent, petulant, and pissy? I mean, he is God after all, right? It drives me nuts when Christians let atheists besmirch the God of Creation. I mean, if he’s real, defend him, right? I know he’s “big enough to defend himself” and “love first” and all that, but I think some Christians use that as a crutch to do nothing (and I speak from experience, as I have and still do that sometimes).
Anyway, apologies all around, but I’ll defend my God.
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Kill them and harvest them for parts(stem cells). How else is he going to have “everlasting life”? Gives you a whole new perspective on Vampirism.
The Apologist on April 24, 2007 at 5:50 PM
You mean, we have to love Enrique?
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Theologies and doctrines that paint God with cruelty are false theologies, false doctrines. This is why people so erroneously refer to God in such terms as, “A pissy, juvenile deity.” This is why God is treated by so many with such apathy and even disdain. This is why atheism flourishes.
clark smith on April 24, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Im am Catholic. I do know the bible ,as do my children. We all know the history of each tradition and pratice.We quesion every thing( I have argued with many a priest and visit the Vatican website often . We do not pray to Mary and the Saints, we might ask them to intercede ,just as I might call on my deceased father to help me understand something. I have studied various religions and have found that most people do not understand their own religion but just follow because they were born into it,this is not just indicative of Catholics.I find that religious people are happy. I do drink, I have fun, I have a very good relationship with my children.My childrens teachers are amazed at thier knowedge of various subjects including politics-in short we have a very good life. I believe that being a Catholic has contributed.
CaCa on April 24, 2007 at 5:54 PM
But … but … but … I thought W’s parents were religious! How, then, do we explain W?
Wait … he’s the exception that disproves the rule! I get it now!!
CountAgion on April 24, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Heh Heh Mabey his parents pushed him off on a nanny of some sort or a family member. I am sure they spent most of their time advancing Sr’s. political career. I’ll admitt he is a querky guy , but I think he is at least a moral individual.
sonnyspats1 on April 24, 2007 at 5:56 PM
I’m so sorry that was your exposure to religion as a child. My exposure was much different, and while I spent some time away studying the “great book of the world”, I came back to it. So, how is your behavior as an adult? Is it colored at all by the experience of religion?
Corollary: It’s not Christianity, it’s the Christians.
Reason: They/We ain’t perfect.
Thank God we can all talk about this here, freely.
BNCurtis on April 24, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Forgive me for being skeptical that this is true.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 5:57 PM
and yes, that was a joke to Enrique. One that atheists should appreciate.
(Atheist translation: Some invisible being who never existed and who has no feelings and created nothing doesn’t recognize your existence)
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 5:57 PM
All churches, Catholic or Protestant are made up of the following:
a small group of committed Christians
a large group of nominal Christians
and the rest are happy pagans.
Explains a lot to Christians tearing their hairs out at building fund committee meetings, and to curious athiests who wander what’s going on in there.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Seems to me he answered every question put to Him and then some. I recall a Bible story where one woman was asking, asking, asking questions of Jesus and was not helping out getting the table ready and an older woman who was working hard getting ready to feed everyone without the younger woman’s help. The older woman became annoyed and said so. Jesus told the older woman that questions were a good thing and to ask away. About anything. Paraphrasing the story here.
CrimsonFisted on April 24, 2007 at 5:58 PM
No, of course not. But I thought your god did. My bad.
Tanya on April 24, 2007 at 5:59 PM
You know we love you! :D
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 5:59 PM
You’re forgiven, Allah! It’s hard to get your arms around, I know.
Matticus Finch on April 24, 2007 at 5:59 PM
CountAgion, Actually, Pres. Bush proves the rule. Look at how he has been maligned and slandered by the media and the Democrats. Vile, mean things are constantly being said about him. Yet, he continues to be a man of class and stature, refusing to be drawn into their mean spirited games. I do not agree with him on illegal immigration, but I do see him as a man of character and one who uses a “soft answer to turn away wrath.”
Rose on April 24, 2007 at 6:00 PM
How can god love Enrique when Enrique doesn’t believe?
God’s very needy. If you reject him, he rejects you.
Allahpundit on April 24, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Well, God says, nay commands we have to love Enrique, so it must be a very good and proper thing to do, even if we less thoughtful and very faulty humans might not think so based on a cursory glance.
If God commands people to love you, Tanya, then that means you have value and a dignity that He has bestowed on you, that the rest of us must respect. If people have not loved you the way God wanted you loved, then they fell short of His wishes. Human failings do not diminish you in His eyes, they diminish themselves.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Who cares what Richard Dawkins would do?
He’s already a god unto himself, so let him die alone as he has chosen to live alone.
That poor, bitter, lonely soul.
I pity him.
Misha I on April 24, 2007 at 6:09 PM
AP-
Did you put up this thread for newbies to get baptized by fire, lol?! These religion-threads always get hot…
Spirit of 1776 on April 24, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Perhaps everyone’s experience with Catholicism is different. The idea that most Catholics are of the “cafeteria” type is quite prominent. However, asserting that Catholicism is a totalitarian brainwash, or that “not trying to be offensive but” Catholicism is full of hypocrisy, or that most Catholics have no idea what they believe comes close to the old anti-Catholic arguments made by Protestants since the Reformation.
I would assert that most people know little of the reason why they believe in anything, including religion or politics.
One common element in many ex-Catholic (lapsed) experiences is the association with nuns’ harsh treatment, and a general disdain for the “authoritarian” nature (or the magisterium, for the adherents) of the Church. Those who eventually fall away have stated that the “bells and smells”–the tradition and ritual do nothing for them. Those who are attracted to the Church, either those brought up in it or those thinking about conversion, state the opposite. As for me, aside from the theological aspects (and I have read the Bible), it is the Church’s history that is most interesting and compelling.
But bashing Catholics through a perception that they are lukewarm believers, or that the Church is nothing but hierarchy and hypocrisy is something else altogether. Many of the non-believing graduate students in my history department regarded religion as a mere “epiphenomenon” that was used to mask political or militaristic ambition. Only those who held their non-belief (atheists, agnostics, etc.) or were adherents to some pagan religion were viewed as “genuine”. I grew tired of the attacks at CU-Boulder, and am disappointed to see the same arguments here.
Allah has throughout made his point of view clear, but never tried to impose it on anyone, or made others feel less because they weren’t on his side. The “heartache” is clearly ironic, and definitely not insulting. Thanks for the good work on bringing all subjects to Hot Air. Keep up the good work!
elpresidente on April 24, 2007 at 6:11 PM
I don’t think we’re tasked to “defend” God. He can handle himself. We’re simply here to follow God’s word and to spread his message as best we can.
Notice that I said “I don’t think.”
Gregor on April 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM
No. We reject Him. He is always there. He will accept anyone who truly seeks him, no matter how bad the past. It’s people who reject when they are rejected, not God.
naliaka on April 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »