Comments on: Ask Richard: Tension and Manipulation Over Prayers at the Dinner Table

By: The Other Tom

The Other Tom — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:57:42 +0000

@Sandra: That’s fine, we’re having a civilized discussion and I’m in no way offended. I did in fact agree with you, and merely wished to clarify that I had thought of those things. I’m sure we both hope for the best for Don and his child.

By: Sandra

Sandra — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 07:46:11 +0000

@ The Other Tom

Sorry, I misunderstood the context of your statement.
When I saw your initial comment, I read it as a dialogue to have during the discussion where Don (and his wife) would be setting the boundaries for acceptable behavior, thus my response. I completely agree with imposing limits when someone has blatantly overstepped a boundary.

By: medussa

medussa — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:07:53 +0000

Poor, poor victimized Jon.
Once again not responding to actual discussion points, once again blaming atheists in general and Hemant in particular for his inability to make his case…

Pity poor Jon.

By: ChameleonDave

ChameleonDave — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:07:04 +0000

Unfortunately, I wrote several comments last night that were ‘moderated’. So, Hemant apparently doesn’t want any opposition view shared

It must have been pretty damn immoderate then, because Hemant lets you spout nonsense on here 24/7.

By: MikeTheInfidel

MikeTheInfidel — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:43:23 +0000

Claudia – I would be glad to share with you my perspective. Unfortunately, I wrote several comments last night that were ‘moderated’. So, Hemant apparently doesn’t want any opposition view shared.

Comments are moderated if they include too many links. Or, of course, you could just be lying. Judging from your past behavior here, I’ll go with the latter.

By: GDad

GDad — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:04:05 +0000

@Siamang:
“But rather to remove the game-playing altogether.”

Amen to that.

By: God is for Suckers! » Blog Archive » Respect goes both ways

God is for Suckers! » Blog Archive » Respect goes both ways — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:08:10 +0000

[...] Richard Wade at Hemant Mehta’s The Friendly Atheist site wrote a post on a subject that affects all of us atheists who have relatives and friends who are god believers and must pray at mealtime. I am respectful when visiting family and friends who must say prayers before eating. I do not participate by bowing my head and folding my hands, but I do sit quietly and let them do their thing. I even am respectful when we go to restaurants with god believers and do not eat till they have said their magical incantations to their imaginary friend, etc. I do not roll my eyes, do not tell them they are really talking to themselves, and I would never interfere with what they feel they need to do. I especially would never interfere with the raising of their children no matter how I feel about them indoctrinating their little ones to believe in and talk to an imaginary being (though I want to very, very much to!) It is not my place to interfere in their child-raising. It’s a free country and it’s none of my business to tell them they can’t practice their religion and I keep my opinions to myself unless they try to convert me or ridicule my non-belief or tell me I am going to go to hell, etc. But the respect is often not returned. [...]

By: Siamang

Siamang — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:56:51 +0000

Linda wrote:

Why not use their theology to reason with them? If that’s what they believe to be the only truth, it may be the only thing they will listen to.

Well, the problem is, I wouldn’t know their theology better than they would.

All they could do is say “in a dream, God came to me and told me I needed to do this”, and I cannot argue against that theology.

Arguing theology is playing ball by their rules. And theology changes the rules when it loses. To argue AGAINST that theology is to have a religious argument where you start disrespecting their beliefs, which is a non-starter in a family discussion toward understanding.

I maintain that this should be an argument about who will be the parent for the child, and leave the theological arguments to people who subscribe to the theology.

Again, the point here is not to keep score or prove right and wrong, is it?

I think the goal is to set acceptable boundaries for behavior. I agree, it’s not to “keep score.” But rather to remove the game-playing altogether.

By: Aj

Aj — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:22:49 +0000

I’m pretty sure the parents comprehend why the grandparents are doing what they’re doing. That doesn’t excuse them of what they’re doing. They have no justification for their beliefs, and they do not have the right to coerce children to act according to their delusions. I think what they have done according to the letter isn’t too troubling, saying prayers and the hand gesture is meaningless to atheists, and toddlers will also find it meaningless.

An atheist telling Christians what to believe is not going to go down well. Christians telling other Christians what to believe doesn’t go down well. If these Christians believe that they’ve been told by God to spread their message, and they believe in hell for non-believers, and they’re not doubting themselves, there’s not much you can do.

As atheists the parents have the power, they also have reason. If they think reason will work that’s great, but it sounds like it doesn’t have a chance. A discussion needs to be had about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. Parents have to take responsibility.

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:39:26 +0000

Claudia – I would be glad to share with you my perspective. Unfortunately, I wrote several comments last night that were ‘moderated’. So, Hemant apparently doesn’t want any opposition view shared.