> > I was keying off the "why you think the book is wrong" bit, and wondering > about putting things in context. Do you really use (you personally) > specific examples, like books, or do you go for the more general, "ideas"? >
I read these three books before the whole anti-religious thing became so big so I was really paying that much attention to it. It was just a general feeling I got from reading the book. If I were forced to give a reason, I would probably say the portrayal of the church was very one-sided. Every represented of the church was evil. > > Using them for discussion I get, but are you saying you'd say "X book is > ok, but come to me with Y book before you read it"? > > Or do you just cover religion and anti-religion, and see where they think > book X falls? > > I guess looking at child-rearing similar to coding (how do I avoid having > to be checked with for every single thing) is, well... sorta what I'm > after. > It's not a religion/anti-religion thing with what books I will let my children read. At this stage in my children's life, I wouldn't let them read Stephen King (the two who can read are 8 & 6). It's more about what they are mentally able to process, filter, and comprehend. As it stands, my wife or I buy all of the books for the kids, usually from a scholastic flier sent home from school. They aren't at the point in their lives where they can go out to Borders and browse the controversial stuff. By the time they get to that age, I would hope they are capable of reading books that have issues that challenge them intellectually. Even at that age, I would hope that I am aware of what's going on in their lives. I don't want them sitting in their rooms reading the Anarchist cookboo, without me knowing why they are reading it. I don't want to be like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's parents, totally oblivious to what is going on in their lives. > Not really teaching good or bad so much as how value is attributed, etc.. > > "How much does one tell their kid(s)? How much should one 'protect' their > > fragile little consciousnesses?" > > > > That would be up to the parents. You just can't shelter them forever. > I > > have seen way too many over-sheltered kids blow a fuse in college and > end > > up out of college before their junior years. > > > > And that's what I want to avoid. But can you over-under-shelter them? > Hmm, > not exactly what I'm trying to say. Probably because what I'm talking > about > is more general than not. Teaching critical thinking. > I think a parent can under-shelter children though I am not a good source for talking about being under-sheltered. I grew up living with my grandmother. I had no curfew, no restrictions, not enough common sense, and no parental guidance. I did a lot of stuff that I shouldn't have been allowed to do. It worked out for me, not because kids should be under-sheltered, but because I had some things go right for me that a lot of people in similar situations didn't. I wouldn't want my kids to live like that though. IMO, if a person does over-shelter his children, which is easy to do, some lessons become harder to learn. I think this is your critical thinking. There's a fine line. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to define it generally. It's a judgment call for each child I think. There are times when a parent should let go of the reigns for a while so a child can learn on their own. > > Bah. Some of this stems from reading stuff that I woudln't have been > alowed > to watch on T.V.. And liking it. And being lucky enough to have > non-specificguidelines as to right and wrong, or whatever. Bah. Hard to > express. > > I'd be scared if for reference, all my kid had was specifics, vs. > generals. > > And I guess I wonder about all the pro-religious stuff that people don't > eventhink about- I'm more worried about my daughter coming home and > telling > me she learned that only 140k people are going to heaven, than coming home > and telling me she's wondering if there's a god, or whatever. > > > Yeah, not real clear, I know. > > I appreciate the honest response, Jerry B! > > Is there anything in the first 2 books that you'd like to comment on as > being anti-religious? I mostly remember the quantum physics bits, but I'm > curious > as to why you think they're anti-religious. (maybe if they were fresh in > my > mind I wouldn't ask). > Like I said above, I read it before the controversy. I probably would have paid more attention if I read it afterwards. If, forced to give a reason, I would probably say the portrayal of the church was very one-sided. IMO, every represented of the church and its people was bad. > > Do you separate religious from spiritual? Bleh. Feel free so answer > some, > or none of the questions. Didn't mean to ask so many. > In these books, I think it was definitely anti-religious (organized religion that is). Not so much anti-spiritual. They talk a lot about spiritual things. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:247093 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
