Not all Christian denomination practice the christening of children. Usually you leave it up to the individual once he's old enough to decide for himself if he wants to follow this religion and get baptised, etc. Christening is just an über-old tradition some Christians practice and others dont.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Not all Christian denomination practice the christening of children. Usually you leave it up to the individual once he's old enough to decide for himself if he wants to follow this religion and get baptised, etc. Christening is just an über-old tradition some Christians practice and others dont.
I think he got sentenced because of hate-mongering, not because of insulting religion. There is a big difference between saying "Islam is wrong" and saying "I hate all Muslims".
I take your points and if all religious people were keeping an open mind like you, then the world would've been a better place than it is today.
One more point on Jefferson - him having sex with his slaves, would've made him a rapist under current laws. This only shows that the moral standards of the current society are far more advanced and it's counter productive to try to apply now the morality standards of a desert tribe from 2000 years ago.
@bishblaize The majority of non-religious people have an open mind already - and by non-religious I mean not only the atheists and agnostics, but also all deists and any other groups of people with different beliefs, but not following an organized religion. Organized religion by definition is against people having an open mind.
We're of like mind on the first point.
On the second point, the mere fact alone that teachings may be 2000 years old doesn't allow us to conclude there isn't great wisdom to be learned from those teachings. New teachings, such as Nazism, can be far more depraved than the teachings of some shaggy hair dude from Nazareth. The teachings of Confucius are well over a thousand years old, yet they seem to be a pretty decent guide to human life.
As the horrifying events of the 20th Century demonstrate, it is not necessarily the case that "the moral standards of the current society are far more advanced". We committed atrocities in the name of advanced scientific teachings -- the supremacy of the master race in the case of the Nazis and the proletariat in the case of the communists. And in the Americas, the slaughter of indigenous peoples was justified by "progress" (although most deaths came from the spread of disease, we did slaughter gobs of Native Americans). In each of those three cases -- the slaughter of the Jews, the slaughter of opponents of communism and the slaughter of indigenous peoples in the Americas -- there is no question that the true teachings of Jesus Christ condemn such barbarism. I'm afraid we cannot conclude that it
Frig. I had a nice reply typed on my laptop but it died again and sunk my post with it so I'm back on my iPad.
Briefly put, ancient wisdom can still be good wisdom. Contemporary wisdom can be wretched.
Hundreds of millions of human beings were slaughtered over the last century in the name "progress" -- nazism and communism. Had the nazis and communists embraced the true teachings of Christ or Confucius they would not have orchestrated the horrific genocides -- which we must acknowledge was perpetrated in the name of "progress" -- that they did.
Old is old, but old isn't necessarily outdated, nor is the new always more "advanced" than the old.
There are exceptions, but in general our morality standards have come far. Each of those painful memories in history, such as holocaust, serve as a lesson to future generation to distance themselves from extremist and communist ideals. We also know now that slavery is wrong beacuse our morals and us have evolved over the last 500 years.
About Hitler, admittedly his later religious views are questionable, but he said this in Mein Kampf: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." So no, Nazism isn't purely derived from "scientific teachings" as you had put it.
And there's no question Jesus Christ would condemn such barbarism? Consider the following: "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:29-30 NIV)
Not to mention Jesus approves of all the laws of the Old Testament (that are not contradicted/overridden by the new, anyways), which is filled with barbarity.
Last edited:
Jesus Christ would condemn barbarism.
In Matthew 5 29-30, Jesus is telling people to discard things which are causing them to sin, even if it is a major sacrifice for them and a painful process (as cutting off a hand would be). He is saying they should not tolerate sin as a part of their lives. He's not suggesting that they should actually cut off limbs or remove eyes.
In Matthew 5 29-30, Jesus is telling people to discard things which are causing them to sin, even if it is a major sacrifice for them and a painful process (as cutting off a hand would be). He is saying they should not tolerate sin as a part of their lives. He's not suggesting that they should actually cut off limbs or remove eyes.
If Jesus Christ didn't actually condemn the butchering of innocent human beings, he's one smooth fork-tongued dude!
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you completely. Here are my objections:
1. You are identifying "contemporary wisdom" with examples like Nazism and Communism, completely ignoring that after 12 year run, Nazism has been overthrown by the same "contemporary wisdom" and Communism after several decades is also largely overthrown. This is the beauty of a secular society - it recognizes that some ideas are wrong and discards them; religious society on the other hand insists that the ideas that were good 2000 years ago should still be good and refuses to change and evolve.
2. You are completely forgetting that the "ancient wisdom" as you call it is guilty of just as many if not more atrocities. The difference again is that religion is incapable to change from within - it takes enormous pressure for a prolonged period of time before it even acknowledges that there is a problem. For example child molestation by priests has been going on for centuries and it has been always swept under the carpet by the church. Under a lot of pressure by the society the pope issued an apology for a first time in 2014, but still no actions taken to make sure it doesn't happen in the future. The church's way of dealing with it was to suppress the news and move the priest to a different parish, where he could continue to do the same things. I can go on with many more examples - the inquisition's persecution of heretics, the witch burnings, the sharia law executions...
3. You are saying that Nazism is a "new teaching" and has nothing to do with religion. The truth is very different - the Nazis used religion extensively to gain support for their movement. It's true that Hitler persecuted some religions, most notably the Jews, but Christianity was a very important for him. The catholic church was working hand in hand with the fascist regimes around Europe at that time, so the first thing he did when he came into power was to reach a treaty with the Vatican, which legitimized his power. Here is a quote from Hitler from 1933:
Also immediately after annexing Austria in 1938 he ordered SS to seize the Spear of Destiny - a catholic relic that is claimed to be used by a Roman soldier to pierce the side of Jesus on the crucifix. He claimed that whoever is in possession of the Spear of Destiny is invincible. He displayed it at the cathedral of Nuremberg and later kept it in a specially constructed bunker underneath.
As you can see Nazism used a lot of the so called "ancient wisdom". I suggest you read about the catholic church and it's connections with Fascism and Nazism. There are a lot more unflattering things you will find out. In 1998 the pope apologized for it.
4. You are claiming that in the Americas, the slaughter of indigenous peoples was justified by "progress" and has nothing to do with religion - this claim is so ridiculous, that I'm starting to think that you are on a WUM. Conversion of the local population to Christianity was one of the main goals of the conquistadors along with the search for gold and claiming the land for the crown. In 1965 the pope apologized for it.
5. Communism - this is probably the only bad thing you quoted, that has very little to do with religion, except for North Korea, which flavor of communism is a modified version of the traditional Korean ancestral worship religion, with Kim Jong-il proclaimed as the Eternal General Secretary after his death.
There is some common pattern here - the church does nothing when is required and sometimes centuries later the pope halfheartedly apologizes - that's how religion works.
Last edited:
But you just said this:
I don't believe in concept of sin, anyways. So this notion that some things are causing me to sin is completely lost on me.
Also, if Jesus really condemned barbarism, he would condemn the actions of his father (i.e. God) in the Old Testament, too. But of course that's not going to happen. In fact, Jesus explicitly tells us that barbaric laws of the Old Testament are to be followed. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17 NIV)
Spot on.
Last edited:
Regarding the first point, it's true that Nazism had a short run, but it had outsized impact and continues to live to this day in various forms of fascism around the world. But even if we can laugh off fascism now, fascism justified itself in the name of progress and science. Hitler's claim that the Aryans were the "master race" was one that he believed was proven by scientific progress and that it justified the extermination of purportedly lesser races. I do not regard this as "progress" or in any way an advancement of civilization. The Soviet communists, whether they were as bad or worse than the Nazis, were at least equally reprehensible.
But it can very safely be said that neither Hitler nor Stalin nor Marx were inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ. (I actually had a good laugh as I typed that last sentence.)
Regarding the slaughter of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, you may not be familiar with the historical fact that many European settlers (and soon to be Americans) viewed them as "savages". There were attempts to "civilize" indigenous peoples "humanely", but more often than not the indigenous peoples of North America fell victim to brutality. I recommend you google "Trail of Tears" and the check out treatment of native Americans in present-day California by Spanish friars (motivated by greed at least as much as by The Book) and gold miners -- people who lived nearly 2000 years after Jesus.
As for ancient wisdom, some of it is still worthwhile and some of it can be laughed at now. But the point is that ancient wisdom can, if it holds up to reason, be informative wisdom today. The man who is free of mind can come to different rational conclusions about the nature of the cosmos and what is just, but what I hope what we can agree to is that every man who honestly and openly inquires into these questions is free of mind, regardless of whether he concludes that there is a divine first cause or that all existence is the result of random, natural forces that arose out of something like the Big Bang. The man is truly free of mind either way, so long as he is properly skeptical as he thinks these things through.
The point here is only that the advancement of time does not necessarily suggest progress. We know from our history books that the state of the known world, at least intellectually, had significantly regressed for about about a millenium (give or take a few centuries) after the death of Lucretius. Since the middle ages we can agree that there has been progress, but it is far form the case that the much of the wisdom of the ancient Greeks and ancient Jews is still very useful wisdom. Anyone who has seen the movie "The Imitation Game" now knows that even post-war Great Britain deemed homosexuals to be criminals. We still have much to learn from the wisdom of the past.
But if your point is just bitching about organized religion, you'll get no quarrel from me.
It looks like we are not going to agree with each other, but I want to address this statement and lets see if you want to laugh after that:
1. Marx was a Jew, so obviously he wouldn't be "inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ".
2. Hitler was a catholic christian and the "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were very important for him and played major role in forming his views. He believed in the special powers in christian artefacts like the Spear of Destiny as I already said. His religious views have changed later in life, but the influence of Catholicism in his early life is undeniable.
There is more: In 1933 Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. His idea for the new Protestant Reich Church was to purify Christianity of what he deemed "Jewish corruption," including purging large parts of the Old Testament. This way the Protestant Reich Church was supposed to be in line with the nationalistic ideals and aspirations of his Nazism rule. A declaration was issued that expressly asserted that Christ alone is the one Word of God — the source of all authority and truth — whom we must hear, trust and obey and rejected as "Jewish corruption" the notion that other powers apart from Christ could be sources of God’s revelation.
If that's not enough here are some more quotes from Hitler:
There are plenty other quotes from Hitler that show how big an influence Christianity had on him.
3. Now the real kicker - Stalin!
Stalin was an Georgian Orthodox Christian, who later in life became an atheist, however "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were very influential for his formative years. Why? Because from early age he studied to become a priest - even if I wanted to make it up I wouldn't be able to come up with this!
At the age of ten, Stalin received a scholarship to a Theological School. Stalin became one of the best students in the class, earning top marks across the board. He became a very good choir-singer and was often hired to sing at weddings. At the age of 15, he enrolled at the Orthodox Seminary, to which he also had been awarded a scholarship. Shortly before the final exams, the Seminary abruptly raised school fees. Unable to pay, Stalin quit the seminary in 1899 and missed his exams, for which he was officially expelled. Shortly after leaving school, Stalin discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin.
Quite an education, isn't it? "The teachings of Jesus Christ" and all that!
1. Marx was a Jew, so obviously he wouldn't be "inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ".
2. Hitler was a catholic christian and the "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were very important for him and played major role in forming his views. He believed in the special powers in christian artefacts like the Spear of Destiny as I already said. His religious views have changed later in life, but the influence of Catholicism in his early life is undeniable.
There is more: In 1933 Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. His idea for the new Protestant Reich Church was to purify Christianity of what he deemed "Jewish corruption," including purging large parts of the Old Testament. This way the Protestant Reich Church was supposed to be in line with the nationalistic ideals and aspirations of his Nazism rule. A declaration was issued that expressly asserted that Christ alone is the one Word of God — the source of all authority and truth — whom we must hear, trust and obey and rejected as "Jewish corruption" the notion that other powers apart from Christ could be sources of God’s revelation.
If that's not enough here are some more quotes from Hitler:
Hitler in a speech in Passau in 1928 said:
Hitler in Mein Kampf said:
Hitler in Mein Kampf said:
Hitler in in a speech in 1922 said:
There are plenty other quotes from Hitler that show how big an influence Christianity had on him.
3. Now the real kicker - Stalin!
Stalin was an Georgian Orthodox Christian, who later in life became an atheist, however "the teachings of Jesus Christ" were very influential for his formative years. Why? Because from early age he studied to become a priest - even if I wanted to make it up I wouldn't be able to come up with this!
At the age of ten, Stalin received a scholarship to a Theological School. Stalin became one of the best students in the class, earning top marks across the board. He became a very good choir-singer and was often hired to sing at weddings. At the age of 15, he enrolled at the Orthodox Seminary, to which he also had been awarded a scholarship. Shortly before the final exams, the Seminary abruptly raised school fees. Unable to pay, Stalin quit the seminary in 1899 and missed his exams, for which he was officially expelled. Shortly after leaving school, Stalin discovered the writings of Vladimir Lenin.
Quite an education, isn't it? "The teachings of Jesus Christ" and all that!
Last edited:
The notion that fascism was justified by science is ridiculous. Claims of existence of a "master race" has never been supported by the scientific method. Social Darwinism is at best pseudoscience that was used to excuse discrimination.
And while you're busy slagging off science by accusing that it was the catalyst for some of the worst events in human history, here is a very small sample of technological advancements made possible through science:
Modern maps
Satellites
DNA Testing
Polio/Smallpox vaccine
Anesthesia
Internet
Computer
Automobile
Breast implants (
)Microwave ovens
X-rays
Electricity
Clocks
Expedition to Moon
Clean water
In fact, we wouldn't even be here debating in the first place if not for these scientific advancements. Keep saying advancement of time does not suggest progress, though.
Last edited:
The expression on those cartoons
How to win friends and influence rapists.
Remember, if it's in the Bible and it's morally reprehensible, it's not to be taken literally. He didn't literally mean "here, rape my daughters". It is actually a metaphor, explaining how to be a good, heterosexual person.
Hahaha, that's brilliant! I actually have a children's bible at home - a family friend gave it to my kids for Christmas. I haven't looked at it yet - it should be good reading
It's an account of an event, not a moral command or example
He was the most righteous man in town though, you can tell that from the passage.
Do they also have a tale about donkey-sized penises?
The drawing's spectacular.
Anyway, it's basically just an extreme example of the sentiment that makes your mum tell you that you can't watch football cause grandma wants to watch Eastenders and she's a guest.
It's all relative. Every other man was outside wanting to rape some angels, so the competition wasn't strong.
Anyway, it's basically just an extreme example of the sentiment that makes your mum tell you that you can't watch football cause grandma wants to watch Eastenders and she's a guest.
When I was a believer and I saw that verse for the first time I was stupefied. The Church is really selective about picking their bible verses.
And later in the same chapter... "Thou shalt even drink it and suck it out, and thou shalt break the sherds thereof, and pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD." (Ezekiel 23:34 KJV) - and some people still wonder why I no longer take the Bible seriously.
Last edited:
The notion that fascism was justified by science is ridiculous. Claims of existence of a "master race" has never been supported by the scientific method. Social Darwinism is at best pseudoscience that was used to excuse discrimination.
And while you're busy slagging off science by accusing that it was the catalyst for some of the worst events in human history, here is a very small sample of technological advancements made possible through science:
Modern maps
Satellites
DNA Testing
Polio/Smallpox vaccine
Anesthesia
Internet
Computer
Automobile
Breast implants (
Microwave ovens
X-rays
Electricity
Clocks
Expedition to Moon
Clean water
In fact, we wouldn't even be here debating in the first place if not for these scientific advancements. Keep saying advancement of time does not suggest progress, though.
I think you have misunderstood my point.
I have never suggested that Nazism was actually justified by science. What I have stated -- and I apologize if this was not clear before -- that Nazism attempted to justify itself by scientific claims. Evil fukks have also justified their butchery of innnocent people in the name of Jesus Christ. And today, the prophet Mohammed.
it could not be more obvious to anyone with open eyes that the Nazis were abominable and that there is no "master race". As Bill Nye has stated as recently as a few days ago, "race" itself is a pure human construct.
What on earth would ever make you think I was "slagging off science"? Science is wonderful and if I may brag for a moment, my daughter has been accepted to UCSF, Stanford and Yale graduate schools to pursue her PhD in molecular biology. I would not encourage her to do this if I thought science was evil. UCSF has a top program, but Stanford isn't too shabby either.
The point, which flew straight over your dome, is that men of free will an rationally choose the embrace any number of claims you or I might disagree with. I personally believe science tells us more about the true origins of the cosmos than the Old Testament, but neither you nor I can possess definitive knowledge of the origins of the cosmos.
And I will be sure to get my flu shots every year, which science informs us is a very good idea.
I may have misunderstood your point but I still don't agree 100%.
Sure, we can't come to a definitive conclusion today about the origins of the cosmos. But under the scientific knowledge we have today, we can safely conclude that it's not rational to believe that Earth is 6000 years old, it's not rational to believe that a guy can resurrect after 3 days after enduring such a harsh punishment of being nailed to a cross, and it's not rational to believe in a holy spirit. All of these things require faith because they have not been scientifically proven and cannot be because they are not falsifiable.
Now if you're talking about a purely deistic creator then you have a point. But to arrive to a purely rational conclusion that a specific deity of Judeo-Christianity magicked the world into existence 6000 years ago is impossible.
Everything in this world is a doctrine of some sort.
The thread "Religion has no point" is some kind of doctrine. Doctrin probably is not the right word because it's closely con-notated with religion and political believes, but as a human being with rational thoughts, we will be bound to side on one side of the argument due to our believe, or simply what we think is right.
If a person thinks that Religion is just a big hoax, it is also a believe. I know it's kinda paradoxical, but as long as you have a set of perception on something, even a "negative view" is a view.
All I believe is that both the Atheist and Religious person believes in something, we believe in the man with beard, and you probably believe in rational thoughts/darwin/big bang/evolution/etc.
Believing in Leprechauns, Santa Claus, Fairies can be categorised as superticious, just like a religious person can believe be Budhist, Monoteism, Shinto, etc.
If you word it like that, a lack of belief in supernatural world is called factual, skeptical.
It simply means you're a realist or skeptist, and being a realist and skeptist means you believe in something, that Fairies didn't exist. You probably held scientific proven facts, but that itself is a sort of believe
You're right, atheism is a doctrine, a belief that a god doesn't exist. (or lack of belief in god, which ever way anyone puts it it's the same thing)
But suggesting that atheists are indoctrinated would be that there was some teacher in an atheist school that repeatedly taught us that there's no god, and often with a connotation that that's the only belief that we have to subscribe to. Which of course, sounds ridiculous.
Guess what churches do: Teach kids to be faithful in God and and tell them you can't question His existence and the credibility of the Bible. Sounds familiar.
To say that both a religious person and an atheist are similar because they both "believe" in something is very misleading though. It's giving the two an equal platform. A religious person believes many things with a complete lack of evidence and often believe something that directly contradicts the evidence. To say that someone's "belief" in evolution is comparable is ludicrous. Every shred of evidence we have suggests that evolution happened and is happening. It's not a belief, it's a scientific fact.
It's a bit like saying if you believe the the earth is flat and I believe it is spherical and both views have merit.
Speaking of which...
(WARNING: not for the faint hearted; prolonged exposure to this video can make you lose faith in humanity and reduce your IQ)
If that's how you put it, but not every religious persons comes to religion because they are indoctrinated, unless you live in North Korea.
First, I would differentiate Religion and faith, everyone can have religion (it's a common thing for Indonesians to have religion, regardless of they're an atheist or agnostic). There are millions of people who goes to the notion of having a religion but in no way having faith at all, but there are also millions that really faithful to whatever teaching they embrace.
And if you pick a mindless kids that are kneeling before a crucifix because they teacher told them so, you might have a point, but if you generalise that all religious people simply do so because they are told to it's a very misleading generalisation. There are people that embraces religion at the adult age, I was born a Budhist, raised a budhist, and become a Christian at 28 years of age, enough to say that I freely and educated enough to say that I choose Christian because of what I believe, because my spiritual experiences that can't be proven. It may turns out that my spiritual experiences is nothing but a strong suggestion inside my head, but it really isn't the case of simply being told and being stupid enough to be brainwashed by the ministries you see on TV.
It's like supporting United, some are couch fans, some are glory hunter, but there are also supporters who supports United with all his heart.
I'm not arguing who's right and who's wrong, which believe is stupid or which believe is more appropriate, but the point remains you believe in something.
And as much as religion still to be proven, the same can be said with science, there are millions of things science can't still properly prove, but it's ok if you believe in science.
The day you can prove beyond doubt anything about religion, that will be the day it stoped being a religion and falls into science realm.
Just a side note, recently they managed to broke atom into smaller pieces, and guess what it consists of : sounds vibration
EDIT: and the religious people are slowly accepting things that are scientifically proven, I'm not a blind minded drone, I can see and judge which falls into faith, which falls into tradition, which is just superticious, which is just a misconception done by religious institution to cheat their followers for their gain. Common sense, ratio, education level all plays a part, not every religiously faithful person simply believes God exists because they're stupid, there are professors and well educated person that really embraces religion because it simply is can't be described with science.
Love/Anger/Act of sacrifice/forgiving/jealousy/envy/lust are still an irational state of mind, and such a human being can never be 100% rational and scientific, no matter how you train your mind. Even atheist does thing that they can't explain or irrational, helping the poor is irrational if you don't believe in an act of kindness, good and evil.
Science can't rationalise goodness in man kind, nor evil in man
Last edited:
If you're born in a Muslim-majority country you're most likely to be a Muslim because your parents took you to a Mosque. If you're born in a Christian-majority country you're most likely to be a Christian because your parents took you to church (which happened to be the case myself, to a degree). List goes on and on.
By Occam's razor that's more likely the case.
Here's a thought on spreading your religion.
There are many threads in the caf about good movies, about good Youtube clip, about great goals you want to share with the masses. There are many who have kids and wants to teach their kids about United, there are parents who raises their kids to love United.
It's simply an urge to share what you think is good, and I don't know the rational way to describe that emotion, nor the apt terms.
Put it on a higher level (since faith, religion is far more serious than football) you'd be more inclined to share your believe with your loved ones.
Imagine if your kids supporting City? It's akin to Christians parents having their kids converted to Islam, or vice versa. I know religion is not football, but the illustrations probably close enough to understand that sometimes accepting that your family member chooses different religion might not be as easy as preached. Or simply, if your kids have no interest at all on Football, you'll probably try to convert him/her into watching United.
There are many threads in the caf about good movies, about good Youtube clip, about great goals you want to share with the masses. There are many who have kids and wants to teach their kids about United, there are parents who raises their kids to love United.
It's simply an urge to share what you think is good, and I don't know the rational way to describe that emotion, nor the apt terms.
Put it on a higher level (since faith, religion is far more serious than football) you'd be more inclined to share your believe with your loved ones.
Imagine if your kids supporting City? It's akin to Christians parents having their kids converted to Islam, or vice versa. I know religion is not football, but the illustrations probably close enough to understand that sometimes accepting that your family member chooses different religion might not be as easy as preached. Or simply, if your kids have no interest at all on Football, you'll probably try to convert him/her into watching United.
More likely, but I'd put those who convert at an adult (most of the times at the hard conditions of being rejected by his society of previous religion) in a higher pedestal because they really made that choice, instead of force feed since baby.
For me a faith is something you choose when you reached an adult state of mind (whatever that age is), you can have a religion but you may not always have faith. But if you have a faith, you'll probably most definitely have a religion. Religion is just the term that used to describe your faith, it's the faith that matters, religion without faith is just another column at the ID card to fill.
CMIIW but Occam's Razor is a suggestion and hasn't been scientifically proven wasn't it? ANd by Occam's Razor : What if simply God really exist?
No, i still have to take issue with this. You are giving myths and legends the same status as scientific fact. You are equating believing in something in the absence of all evidence with recognising scientific testable facts. The point that "you believe in something" is nonsensical. I don't "believe" in evolution for instance. I know that it happens.
Anyone who forces ideas on children is doing a bad job of parenting. If my children decided to support City or Liverpool it would not bother me. If my children decided to become Christian, Jewish or Muslim it wouldn't bother me either. The things I would instill in my children is the importance of education, health, manners and critical thinking.
I only watched 5 minutes of it because most of them were giving the same couple of answers. I think a lot of them don't acknowledge evolution, which is sad, but most seem to think it should be taught, which is encouraging. It is scary though how many don't acknowledge one of the fundamental parts of our history as a species.