Need some help with some info for an essay...

"I grant my son or daughter the right to attend this after school club with other children where they will eat candy and pizza and sing songs....?"

It is possible that the contract is vague and misleads the parents. However, they get to know about it being misleading if their kids regurgitate what's indoctrinated (for example the case of Kenny). Most importantly, neither you nor I know whether or not the contract is misleading.

See, your argument just presumes that religious discussions is unwarranted for kids, period. Such argument then goes back to parents taking their kids to church. Your argument again infers that what they do is immoral. In churches, children learn about hell, Satan and salvation too, you know? Therefore, make yourself clear first on establishing your stand on religion before proceeding to argue about kids and religious influences. You can't take such a leap and presume that everyone is on the same wavelength with you as far as religion being this dreadful thing only for those with functioning and complete mature faculties. The foundation of mainstream protestant Christianity is that hell and heaven applies to all humans, so kids learning early prepares them at anytime. . . .

Again, it also goes back to parents consenting in the case of a religious club at school. If parents are consenting, likely they don't mind and are of that belief system themselves. At home or church, the kids probably get the same or relative doctrines too. You can argue against if you want, but you want to be persuasive in your argument I suppose. Speaking of, you haven't even explained what class this is for. It would help significantly in knowing the nature of essay expected. But generally, if you want to be persuasive, you don't want to appear so obviously biased to the point of having no substances to support your argument or to the extent of seeming to omit relevant information.

By the way, no more gobadgism tonight, I suppose!

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: luvly
"I grant my son or daughter the right to attend this after school club with other children where they will eat candy and pizza and sing songs....?"

It is possible that the contract is vague and misleads the parents. However, they get to know about it being misleading if their kids regurgitate what's indoctrinated (for example the case of Kenny). Most importantly, neither you nor I know whether or not the contract is misleading.

See, your argument just presumes that religious discussions is unwarranted for kids, period. Such argument then goes back to parents taking their kids to church. Your argument again infers that what they do is immoral. In churches, children learn about hell, Satan and salvation too, you know? Therefore, make yourself clear first on establishing your stand on religion before proceeding to argue about kids and religious influences. You can't take such a leap and presume that everyone is on the same wavelength with you as far as religion being this dreadful thing only for those with functioning and complete mature faculties. The foundation of mainstream protestant Christianity is that hell and heaven applies to all humans, so kids learning early prepares them at anytime. . . .

Again, it also goes back to parents consenting in the case of a religious club at school. If parents are consenting, likely they don't mind and are of that belief system themselves. At home or church, the kids probably get the same or relative doctrines too. You can argue against if you want, but you want to be persuasive in your argument I suppose. Speaking of, you haven't even explained what class this is for. It would help significantly in knowing the nature of essay expected. But generally, if you want to be persuasive, you don't want to appear so obviously biased to the point of having no substances to support your argument or to the extent of seeming to omit relevant information.

By the way, no more gobadgism tonight, I suppose!

It's for my Philosophy class... When parents take children to church they are just taking them there. They aren't bribing them with candy toys or pizza. The difference is that that group is using means to coerce the children into professing their faith. Look at the phrase you found so funny. A child is mad because hes jewish and he associates that with not getting pizza and toys.... BTW I went to the groups website and requested a permission slip, so well have our answer in a few days.

Back to the big picture, cause you like to nitpick so damn much My arguement is that religious conversions are immoral because they are decitful and use bribery to acheive their goals. The missionary in Ghandis quote giving money to poor Hindus to get them to become Christians is just as bad as giving candy to children so that they profess their faith in Jesus.

And if you still want to nitpick the small points... that little jewish kid, never should have been able to attend the meetings if the club had properly kept track of who actually had a permission slip. Funny how they know exactly how many people professed their love for jesus, but they cant keep track of if every kid is allowed to be there.

 

"A child is mad because hes jewish and he associates that with not getting pizza and toys...."

I think you can say the same thing about a Jewish kid sneaking into a Seventh Day Adventist Church on a Sabbath day and seeing how rich the members are to afford delicious potlucks and desserts. I'm sure he'll go back and whine to his father. We call that spoilt kid or deprived kid. Nothing to do with the fact that the organisation socialises.

GeeeeeeZ! Again, it seems it's just a reward the kids get, just as I got rewards in some of the non-religious clubs I joint during school. The more money a club has, the more goodies you'll get. Offers were often used as incentives to get people to spread the word of mouth about an organisation. Since this organisation seems to have money, they'll keep on putting up incentives. I haven't read that the organisation is standing on the doorway and waving candies or toys at the kids. Do you set Christians to a different standard when it comes to exploiting basic capitalism to achieve abstract results? I guess if you do, then yes you can argue that it's immoral. However, it wouldn't matter whether or not it were applied to kids instead of adults.

"Read some quotes by Ghandi of experiences with conversion attempts.

Only the other day a missionary descended on a famine area with money in his pocket, distributed it among the famine stricken, converted them to his fold, took charge of their temple, and demolished it. This is outrageous. (Harijan: November 5, 1937)"

Well, hello? You're just pointing out what I was trying to say to you earlier. You can't compare missionary in the USA or Europe with missionary in third world nations or missionary of the days of colonialism.

Ghandi's quote supports my point about how essential it would be to touch missionaries at the time of colonialism and then relate it to missionary now. Of course, also it's easier to find resources on that subject. Missionaries now, for example, are no longer taking charge of temples, burning buildings, demolishing, etc. It is what was done during colonialism. Missionary today is significantly different in third world nations. First off, millions of people in third world nations have been converted, so Christianity is no longer a foreign doctrine as it once was. Secondly, the methods used then are in contrast with methods used now.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: luvly
"A child is mad because hes jewish and he associates that with not getting pizza and toys...."

GeeeeeeZ! Again, it seems it's just a reward the kids get, just as I got rewards in some of the non-religious clubs I joint during school. The more money a club has, the more goodies you'll get. Offers were often used as incentives to get people to spread the word of mouth about an organisation. Since this organisation seems to have money, they'll keep on putting up incentives. I haven't read that the organisation is standing on the doorway and waving candies or toys at the kids. Do you set Christians to a different standard when it comes to exploiting basic capitalism to achieve abstract results? I guess if you do, then yes you can argue that it's immoral. However, it wouldn't matter whether or not it were applied to kids instead of adults.

It is a completely different matter. Getting a discount on the ronco food dehydrator because you tell 5 of your friends about it, is different than getting candy or pizza for bringing other young children to the meetings. The article also doesnt mention if the guests that are brought are required to have a permission slip signed. The two ideas that you present are on different planes. Getting prizes for bringing along people to have their religion converted is morally different than getting prizes for bringing people along to your 4h meetings.

 

Ghandi even emphasises "famine". I am sure you can try the analogy of kids getting cookies to people starving, but let's be honest: Their parents aren't too poor to afford snacks for their kids, are they? The kids could get sufficient goodies from their parents that wouldn't require begging from anyone out there. People who were in need of food at the time of colonialism had no option, so it was coercion used on them if they would stay in starvation if they didn't convert. On the other hand, some kids here may choose to be greedy. Of course you would be presuming that kids are inherently greedy, but I'm not sure that's what you're trying to convey. How would you even know statistically that most of those kids are driven by the snacks they get? If they are, then maybe they aren't really converting and aren't really susceptible to the doctrine? So if they're just regurgitating, why would it matter so long as their parents consent it, since they frankly don't care about the doctrines?

P.S.: I agree with you that the evangelists should have been more careful to actually screen people. However, you know any new member is an achievement to them. Basically, Gobadgrs, my advice if you'll still stick with your ambiguous argument: Make it less confusing at least by giving an intensional definition of "morality". Is morality relative? Is there moral realism? Make clear your position on things like that. If you stipulate definitions, then it would be much easier for you to make your argument here.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: luvly
Ghandi even emphasises "famine". I am sure you can try the analogy of kids getting cookies to people starving, but let's be honest: Their parents aren't too poor to afford snacks for their kids, are they? The kids could get sufficient goodies from their parents that wouldn't require begging from anyone out there. People who were in need of food at the time of colonialism had no option, so it was coercion used on them if they would stay in starvation if they didn't convert. On the other hand, some kids here may choose to be greedy. Of course you would be presuming that kids are inherently greedy, but I'm not sure that's what you're trying to convey. How would you even know statistically that most of those kids are driven by the snacks they get? If they are, then maybe they aren't really converting and aren't really susceptible to the doctrine? So if they're just regurgitating, why would it matter so long as their parents consent it, since they frankly don't care about the doctrines?

P.S.: I agree with you that the evangelists should have been more careful to actually screen people. However, you know any new member is an achievement to them. Basically, Gobadgrs, my advice if you'll still stick with your ambiguous argument: Make it less confusing at least by giving an intensional definition of "morality". Is morality relative? Is there moral realism? Make clear your position on things like that. If you stipulate definitions, then it would be much easier for you to make your argument here.

The statement about the kids is similar to giving alcohol to alcoholics if they attend certain meetings, or get friends to buy certain products. Neither the children need candy to survive nor do the alcoholics need alcohol, but they would be targeted by the very things that would be the most effective in getting them to attend the meetings and sell the organization. Why doesnt the church group feed the kids vegetables instead of candy? Because candy is an effective way of attracting children, thats why. And are you familiar with the Helsinki syndrome? Its where after a certain amount of time, people who have been kidnapped start to associate with their kidnappers. It's similar here, because after repeated attendance of meetings being bombarded with the same ideals over and over, children especially will start to lose some of their possible resistance. And children are the group of people most easily coerced.

 

"The statement about the kids is similar to giving alcohol to alcoholics if they attend certain meetings, or get friends to buy certain products."

Again, your analogy escapes me. You're making a presumption that kids are inherently greedy. An alcoholic is already defined as one, so the presence of alcohol is a pronounced form of allurement. But what defines kids as addicts of candies? I know many kids who aren't addicted to candies or toys and wouldn't be lured by it. Do we even know the types of toys distributed? Are they alluring? I know kids don't like to receive crappy toys. Same with candies . . . kids have their preferences. I am sure the snack is seen as a good thing by most of the kids. However, the question is, how many think like Kenny to the extent of being driven by candies or toys? Again, we do not know how much is distributed to these kids for it to make that much of an impact on kids who would typically not choose to be in this program. Do we even know how many kids have joined this club to support the inference that kids are significantly driven by candies and toys?

"Why doesnt the church group feed the kids vegetables instead of candy? Because candy is an effective way of attracting children, thats why."

Uhmm . . . do you really hear of many places, even vegetarian organisations, that offer vegetables as desserts or snacks? The organisation isn't offering meals. It wouldn't make sense to, since the kids aren't starving. Dessert/snack is what keeps people listening if they aren't hungry but are about to listen to some lectures or doctrines. Besides, there are laws about distributing food to people. The organisation wouldn't want to risk criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit there.

"And are you familiar with the Helsinki syndrome? Its where after a certain amount of time, people who have been kidnapped start to associate with their kidnappers. It's similar here, because after repeated attendance of meetings being bombarded with the same ideals over and over, children especially will start to lose some of their possible resistance. And children are the group of people most easily coerced."

I am familiar with it. However, I'm afraid your analogy again fails for reason of accidental application. The kids in this case are not being kidnapped or coerced, unless you perceive parental consent as kidnapping (supposing the contract is explicit). On the other hand, you can say the same about the whole process of raising a kid. Doctrines are brought upon them by method of familiarity and incentives. Again, this is the natural process. It is hard to argue your point if you escape the significant factor: Parents are required to sign a form of consent. If they weren't, then it could and would seem to be immoral because enticement is used (supposing that's the purpose of the snacks). In spite of that, it would be hard to argue coercion, since they aren't being threatened or forced in any way (i.e., the definition of coercion).

 

[GoingUp]

Again, your analogy escapes me. You're making a presumption that kids are inherently greedy. An alcoholic is already defined as one, so the presence of alcohol is a pronounced form of allurement. But what defines kids as addicts of candies? I know many kids who aren't addicted to candies or toys and wouldn't be lured by it. Do we even know the types of toys distributed? Are they alluring? I know kids don't like to receive crappy toys. Same with candies . . . kids have their preferences. I am sure the snack is seen as a good thing by most of the kids. However, the question is, how many think like Kenny to the extent of being driven by candies or toys? Again, we do not know how much is distributed to these kids for it to make that much of an impact on kids who would typically not choose to be in this program. Do we even know how many kids have joined this club to support the inference that kids are significantly driven by candies and toys?

My statement isnt assuming that kids are greedy. Its saying that the organization is targeting the children through a very effective method of recruitment and retention, namely candy, toys, cookies and pizza. I think that you would be hard pressed to find a child who doesn't enjoy at least one of those items. Wanting cookies et all, doesnt make a child greedy.

Uhmm . . . do you really hear of many places, even vegetarian organisations, that offer vegetables as desserts or snacks? The organisation isn't offering meals. It wouldn't make sense to, since the kids aren't starving. Dessert/snack is what keeps people listening if they aren't hungry but are about to listen to some lectures or doctrines. Besides, there are laws about distributing food to people. The organisation wouldn't want to risk criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit there.

Clearly the organization is dishing out food at the meetings in the form of candy, cookies and pizza. Why don't they then make it healthy food? If the organization was doling out liver and onions, I am sure that attendance would be much lower.

I am familiar with it. However, I'm afraid your analogy again fails for reason of accidental application. The kids in this case are not being kidnapped or coerced, unless you perceive parental consent as kidnapping (supposing the contract is explicit). On the other hand, you can say the same about the whole process of raising a kid. Doctrines are brought upon them by method of familiarity and incentives. Again, this is the natural process. It is hard to argue your point if you escape the significant factor: Parents are required to sign a form of consent. If they weren't, then it could and would seem to be immoral because enticement is used (supposing that's the purpose of the snacks). In spite of that, it would be hard to argue coercion, since they aren't being threatened or forced in any way (i.e., the definition of coercion).

The analogy wasnt supposed to show that kids are actually kidnapped, its supposed to show that over time, they are brainwashed and begin to associate with the organizations members. Even if the children went to the meetings solely for the purpose of getting candy, over time they will start to believe what is being told to them by the adults in the organization. As far as coercion, couldn't that be extended to a child feeling threatened by being viewed as an outcast for not attending the meetings?

I'm interested to see what happens if they send me a permission slip via Email like I requested. That should significantly change the dynamic of our organization.

And to further spark debate if you so desire, I will also be talking about faith based help, the corruption within, how your money doesnt get to the people who really need it, or how your donations are used to convert the people you are trying to help.

 

"The analogy wasnt supposed to show that kids are actually kidnapped, its supposed to show that over time, they are brainwashed and begin to associate with the organizations members. Even if the children went to the meetings solely for the purpose of getting candy, over time they will start to believe what is being told to them by the adults in the organization. As far as coercion, couldn't that be extended to a child feeling threatened by being viewed as an outcast for not attending the meetings?"

I understand you weren't saying they were being kidnapped. But I'm saying that the same method that gets kids too close to even a kidnapper is the same method applied in parenting. It's a natural process. Kids would listen to parents they've lived with for so long, and one who feeds them daily. We just don't call it brainwashing if it's a conformist doctrine from the parents to the kids. So unless this organisation was luring the kids without written consent from their parents or with misleading permission, it's basically their parents setting the rules for what they want their kids to hear. You're indirectly questioning their parents or pretending their parents are insignificant in the process.

Even the article you referenced only had one instance to show as an example of a kid who was enticed. The kid also happens to be the kid who didn't get parental consent. If the author had several instances of kids indicating or hinting that they were lured by the snacks and all of that, they would have had more quotes to state. They certainly don't sound like a pro-envangelist sympathiser. They also made it clear that Kenny was the exception, not the rule.

"As far as coercion, couldn't that be extended to a child feeling threatened by being viewed as an outcast for not attending the meetings?"

That's possible if there's an actual pressure from peers or from the organisation itself. However, there's no indication of pressure. It would be especially possible if they stood on the door entrance to the school, classes, or gave speeches during classroom hours for example. It would also be possible if their friends pressured them to join the organisation. Nonetheless, there's no mention of anything like that. We don't even know how many students have joined the organisation and from how many schools, except how many claim to be converted. The statistic would be revealing.

All right, I think that's it for today! I guess we diverted from what your subject was to arguing about the article. Hope you gained something from today's discussion. I realise we're basically the only two posting in this thread, and it's almost time for a good rest. Thanks for the articles.

 

[GoingUp]

All right, I think that's it for today! I guess we diverted from what your subject was to arguing about the article. Hope you gained something from today's discussion. I realise we're basically the only two posting in this thread, and it's almost time for have a good rest. Thanks for the articles.

So youre admitting to neffing! :Q Thanks for the debate I did learn a few objections to my arguement, which are required for me to put into my paper. I do however, believe that my professor will be less thick headed and stubborn than you when I make my arguements

 

[GoingUp]

bump for any more input...

 

[GoingUp]

on the rest of you for not providing any input

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
on the rest of you for not providing any input

If you would kindly thank me in advance for assisting you, I would gladly provide you some links with which you can perform other research. I think it is only proper of you to do so.




heh heh

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
on the rest of you for not providing any input

If you would kindly thank me in advance for assisting you, I would gladly provide you some links with which you can perform other research. I think it is only proper of you to do so.




heh heh

THANKS CONJUR YOURE THE BEST

CONJUR IS THE BEST EVERONE :beer:

WE :heart: CONJUR

 

[HappyPuppy]

I consider it morally wrong to be"converting" people. By doing so they will be losing their culture, history and morals. Screw a bunch of Christian dogooders and all the damage they have done throughout history.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I consider it morally wrong to be"converting" people. By doing so they will be losing their culture, history and morals. Screw a bunch of Christian dogooders and all the damage they have done throughout history.

Thats why my essay is about

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
on the rest of you for not providing any input

If you would kindly thank me in advance for assisting you, I would gladly provide you some links with which you can perform other research. I think it is only proper of you to do so.




heh heh

THANKS CONJUR YOURE THE BEST

CONJUR IS THE BEST EVERONE :beer:

WE :heart: CONJUR

LMAO!!

Ok...here ya go (you've probably already searched for these yourself, though)

http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/curriculum/lm14/stu_actfour14.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm
http://www.sedos.org/english/magesa_1.htm

Hope they help.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I consider it morally wrong to be"converting" people. By doing so they will be losing their culture, history and morals. Screw a bunch of Christian dogooders and all the damage they have done throughout history.

Thats why my essay is about

Good for you for taking a realistic standpoint. You get 10 HappyPuppy points redeemable for beers of your choice.


Oh, it doesn't pertain to Africa, but read the history of what the Christian missionaries did on Easter Island some day. It's a major eyeopener.

Cheers.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
I consider it morally wrong to be"converting" people. By doing so they will be losing their culture, history and morals. Screw a bunch of Christian dogooders and all the damage they have done throughout history.

Thats why my essay is about

Good for you for taking a realistic standpoint. You get 10 HappyPuppy points redeemable for beers of your choice.


Oh, it doesn't pertain to Africa, but read the history of what the Christian missionaries did on Easter Island some day. It's a major eyeopener.

Cheers.

I'm goin to look that up right now.... it may provide more material that I need

Ever hear of Fray Diego de Landa? He burned 8 centuries of mayan books because they were "the work of the devil"

Too bad this paper can only be 7 pages long, I could write about 15.

Thanks for the links conjur