Advice Avenue via Atheist Street no. 4

I haven’t done one of these in a long time, but my spam net caught a link to more links about Billy Graham and I recalled earlier decisions to respond to his mail.

I grew up as a “P.K.” (a “Preacher’s Kid”), but when I reached my teens I went in a much different direction. That was more than 40 years ago, and now I wonder if I went too far. How can I find a faith that’s right for me and isn’t just my parents’ faith? — W.R.

W.R includes nothing in the way of examples so it’s hard to guess the severity of his/her rebellion. Are we talking life of crime, or lots of sex with random strangers, or rock and roll?

I think rebellion is a natural reaction to a strict upbringing, or anything that seems strict at the time. It’s natural to disagree with parents and it starts as soon as we realize what “No,” means. They’ll try to do what’s best, try and instill in us all the ethics and moralities they hope we’ll keep throughout our lives and a lot of it is probably worth keeping.

Only W.R can decide if s/he went “too far” away from whatever beliefs the parents hold. And that’s not included either, so we have no basis for comparison. This is a really poor way to write a letter when you want decent advice, by the way.

The best way to find a faith that fits is to try a bunch of different ones. I’m not saying be Hindu today and Muslim tomorrow. If W.R still wants to be a Christian, then randomly pick a church and sit in a pew on Sunday. Talk to parishioners before and after the service, get the feel of the location, whether people are distrustful of strangers, or welcoming, or apathetic. Talk to the priest or pastor after. Figure out a list of important questions you’d like answered and make an appointment to discuss those issues with him or her. Then next week, go to that church again or try another one and do the same routine. Try different flavours. Listen to a few sermons and see what fits. Maybe W.R. would find the parents’ church is still the one that best suits his/her ideals, but at least W.R. would return to it with a better idea of what else there is. And W.R. could change the mind at any time. Try somewhere else, try something else. When it comes to faith or personal growth if that’s your thing, only you know what you’re going to need. You can’t rely on anyone else to try and sort that out for you, no matter how much they might get paid to say they know. Which brings me to Billy Graham.

Thou shalt not con the faithful lovelorn…

..is not one of the commandments. Thou shalt not steal is, though, so at least they’re busted for that one. I found out about this via USA Today but I’ll be pulling my quotes out of the original article from Brisbane:

Law enforcers say an increasing number of Australians are falling victim to romance fraud, with an insidious new religious flavour that appeals to values of faith.

“They go into Christian chat rooms and a lot of the time when they ask for money, there’s a Christian element to the [scammer's] story,” Queensland police Fraud Squad chief Detective Inspector Brian Hay said.

“It’s a comfort thing for the victim.

“We are seeing more targeted attacks because people put information about themselves on to the web.”

What surprises me more about this is how it becomes newsworthy. Prior to the internet, people were still conning people out of their hard earned money. I suppose it was a lot more time consuming to approach people on a personal one-on-one level, but at least you got a good look at the crook who was about to bilk you, even if you gladly gave him all the cash in your wallet.

When I first started with internet chat stuff, this was primarily my mother’s main concern – how can you trust someone you can’t see? He says he’s a university student but you don’t know… My response always wound up being something like, how can you trust a neighbour or the guy you meet for drinks? Your own partner may have a secret life you know nothing about. Ultimately it’s no different from answering newspaper personal columns. If you dare meet these people, you arrange for a public venue and a handy phone so the friend you’ve told can call you twenty minutes into the date and make sure your head’s still on.

They’re not the first people to target lonely women for these schemes either, but why are these Nigerians so good at it?

In just the first six months of this year more than $4 million has been sent by Queenslanders to Nigeria, where romance scamming is a thriving cottage industry.

On average, Australians are sending about $4.5million each month to the African nation, where many believe they have found love.

Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson said romance fraud “didn’t come much lower.”

“There is something particularly brutal and cruel about targeting someone who is lonely and vulnerable, looking for company or a partner in their life,” Mr Atkinson said.

The internet certainly makes it easier to target them on a massive scale. Curry favour by claiming to believe the same religious claptrap they do, have same values, same morals, same ideals, by gum, I think it’s love. Please send money…

Lonely people are somehow duped into replying to those automatic Nigerian scam emails, which lets the original sender create a bond with their target and gain trust, but more people wind up victims thanks to all the information available on social network sites.

Detective Superintendent Hay said a recent study of 200 victims of online fraud found 120 had fallen for romance-related scams and had collectively parted with more than $21.5 million.

“As [criminals] suck the life out of them, they get their money, they get their emotions,” Detective Superintendent Hay said.

He blamed increases in romance scams on people being too liberal with their personal details online.

People really don’t give much of a damn about privacy anymore, do they? They might say they do, but a lot of people don’t seem to have any qualms or reservations when it comes to deciding what stuff they’ll post. Even if they come across as completely idiotic and their home-made video burns through the interwebs like wildfire.

So, here’s a link with clues on how to spot an on-line dating scam. Forewarned is forearmed.

Evil ads promote volunteering? Quick! Call the Army!

I’m going to ignore the fact that there’s a part one to this thing and just take this opinion piece as it stands.

My ten-year-old daughter loves “So You Think You Can Dance.” I suspect most eight to eighteen-year-old girls do. So, my question to the producers of this hit show is: “Why are you pointing my daughter to a web page asking her to work at Planned Parenthood?”

Because Planned Parenthood paid for the ad? They’re allowed to advertise on shows that women who may need them will be watching. Planned Parenthood does more than abortions, by the way. They offer a wide range of services and have good goals in mind that would benefit a lot of people.

Besides, TVs haven’t gotten that smart, have they? They don’t know how old a viewer is. “Look out. 4156 Bork Ave has a 10 year old staring. Put something fluffy on…”

Are they going to send people over to your house now and force your daughter to give up her life for a few hours and stuff envelopes in a stuffy office? No. It’s something we in the normal world call a “suggestion” and it wasn’t specifically aimed at your daughter. She just happened to see it.

Next week the networks will coordinate their shows’ story-lines to promote volunteerism.

Volunteering is a great way to do a great thing and a great way meet people who also want to do great things. (It’s also something I know I should be doing. I just keep putting it off.) I suspect a lot of kids took up smoking after seeing their favourite actors lighting up in movies and TV and so on. If only volunteerism could be a lifelong habit, too. I don’t see anything wrong with what they’re planning.

Quotable opinion (and it’s not mine. I know! Call Ripley’s!)

The opinion piece (see link below) was in an American newspaper about unnecessary plastic surgery and how the skills of these doctors would be put to better humanitarian use in places like Ghana that have a dire need for corrective surgeons. This is from the author’s response to criticism from a couple unimpressed docs:

It is disappointing to see doctors promoting plastic surgery as a way for woman and men to increase their self esteem. This is especially true in the case of women, as there is already an undue emphasis in America on valuing women by their looks and body shape. My article discussed the use of cosmetic surgery by both men and women. The Drs. letter makes it sound like I was attacking only women who go for plastic surgery. I wasn’t. The fact that more women go for plastic surgery than men, doesn’t say as much about those women as it does about the way our society views women. Women should not be viewed as objects. Fox and Schingo apparently think they should.

And that my dear physicians is a Victorian attitude!!

It’s one thing to wax your eyebrows into a different shape. It’s a whole other thing to get your entire face reshaped because you don’t like the bridge of your nose, your pointy chin, and think even your cheekbones need some shaving off.

Don’t even get me started on Jocelyn Wildenstein. All the money she’s got and she paid people to do that to her? Money talks but sometimes it sounds like a bad case of aphasia. Cost to look that hideous: $4,000,000 (according to the video). But she likes it. Who am I to be appalled?

I wonder how many people are aware of racial plastic surgery. I can’t find the site now but there was before/after photography of several actresses that had resorted to surgery to alter their appearance to the point of hiding their ethnicity. I’d heard of skin bleaching before but this…yikes. But it’s not just for celebrities hoping to make a better buck by looking All-American. Ordinary people, many of them of Asian descent, have considered doing this.

I can’t help but find that there’s an inherent complex attached to altering one’s facial features — especially for an Asian-American. After all, I have never heard of someone who goes under the knife to have a double-eyelid reversal surgery or his classic roman nose flattened.

For a long time plastic surgeons worked with the Anglo-Saxon ideal of beauty, and medical schools a few decades ago did not acknowledge racial distinctions when it came to plastic surgery. A classic Roman nose was standard, and so was a double eyelid. Going under the knife in the name of beauty was, for a long time, a move toward having a Caucasian face.

Indeed, Asia’s relationship with the West has been traditionally schizophrenic and contradictory when it comes to self-image. Vietnamese children of mixed parentage born of American GIs during the war, for instance, were a permanent under class, and their conditions worsened after the war ended. Perceived as children of the enemy, they were often derided, chastised and beaten. But these days those mixed children’s features are coveted by many wealthy people in Saigon and Hanoi. They want their noses, eyes, lips, and would save a fortune to go under the knife to look like them.

If it wasn’t for my complete and total aversion to pain and surgery in general, I would perhaps consider saving up for something like liposuction. Suck out those pesky fat cells and start anew. But then I’d have also to be hypnotized into believing I’m deathly allergic to potato chips and fries.

I think more effort should be put into body acceptance rather than that elusive self-esteem. It’s hard for young girls to feel good about their bodies when they don’t see anyone in movies or tv that have pudgy faces or mousy hair. Nobody’s short and chunky and girls are only seen wearing glasses if we’re all supposed to pretend she’s the ugly duckling that will soon get a makeover by the sexy blonde stiletto bimbo.

Older women won’t feel any better about themselves either when the only curvy stars are the ones getting mocked on every magazine cover. And that brouhaha over Lizzie Miller? How does that chick even qualify as plus sized? And I love how the article’s automatic ad stuff has nothing to do with the story and yet says everything Miller is trying to make a stand against:

I don’t think we can win.

I wondered when people would sue Wal-mart again

I love the reason they’re doing it this time – an employee from the photo department called the cops on a family that took bath-time photos of their children. Then Arizona Child Protective Services was called to take the kids away. The parents got them back eventually, but still.

The Peoria couple’s attorney said Walmart turned the photos over to police and the Demarees were not allowed to see their children for several days and didn’t regain custody for a month while the state investigated.

Neither parent was charged with sexual abuse and they regained custody of their children — then ages 1 1/2, 4 and 5 — but the Demarees claim the incident inflicted lasting harm.

The couple is seeking undetermined monetary damages from both Walmart and the state and have requested a jury trial.

Richard Treon, the lawyer for the Demarees, said the images of the girls were part of a group of 144 photographs taken mostly during the family’s vacation in San Diego.

Wal-Mart’s under fire for not making their policies more clear about what kind of photos they will and will not process. They are legally within their rights to involve police if they think a photo crosses a line. The trouble comes in when ordinary people start drawing the lines any ole where — get somebody just a little bit prudish or religious prone to over-reacting in charge of the machinery and the most innocuous photographs can raise a red flag.

The other suit names

Arizona, Peoria and the state Attorney General’s Office as defendants, claiming that employees from each defamed them by telling friends, family members and co-workers that they had “sexually abused” their children by taking pornographic pictures of them.

That would qualify as slander, right? The kids would have trauma enough from prolonged separation anxieties. It’s just good they were too young to understand exactly how their parents were getting wrongfully stigmatized.

I don’t get the purpose of bath photos but I know my parents took them. And they didn’t do their own developing so I know at least one stranger got a free look at my naked chest or tushie. Well, no, I guess he or she would have been paid to look at it. Nobody develops for free.

I wish people would think before they act. More than that, I wish fewer people would think the worst first and then act irrationally. Is everyone scared they’ll be shot in the face if they ask people direct questions, or are they just worried they’ll be sued if they say the wrong thing?

Oh. Right…

My suggestion — slap a pre-printed sticker on the photo envelope: “For policy reasons we are unable to process (insert file numbers). Sorry for the inconvenience.” If anyone asks why the fuck not, explain why nudity policies exist for photo developing studios. With luck they’ll just be embarrassed. It probably never occurred to them that anyone would consider soapy play-time bath pictures to be pornography. And if they do get their freak on (as customers denied their “rights” sometimes do) then involve the police, if only to stop the clerk from getting assaulted.

Maybe next time the Demarees should try the instant “Do It Your Damn Self” machines so those hoopy froods snoopy prudes behind the counter lose the opportunity to voice their righteous indignation. Or just foot the bill for a decent home printer and avoid risking a scandal altogether.

“Truth is more controversial than pornography”

A billboard was dismantled for being honest, while a billboard depicting an homage to the design of a woman’s parts (via wood grain and a well placed mango) can still sell Absolut Vodka. The billboard in question is not one of those honest “You can be good without God” style atheist ones that people have been freaking out over all over America, but a consumer watchdog group’s sign about a poor insurance company.

“Truth is more controversial than pornography,” said Harvey Rosenfield, founder of Consumer Watchdog, whose ad was dismantled last week. All the ad said was, “You Can’t Trust Mercury Insurance,” with a referral to Consumer Watchdog’s website, which lays out 10 concerns the organization has with Mercury.

And the other billboard?

“If you drive three to four blocks east of where ours was,” said Rosenfield’s colleague, Jamie Court, “there’s a huge Absolut Mango ad, and it’s really not a mango.”

Court said he was alerted by his wife, who happened upon it while driving and made the following observation:

“There’s a five-story vagina on a building.”

Having visited the location Tuesday afternoon, I’d like to make a clarification.

There’s a 10-story vagina on a building.

The author of this piece, Steve Lopez, wandered over to the non-denominational church nearby and dragged their secretary out to have a look. She wasn’t shocked by the suggestive advertising. “The world’s going to hell in a handbag,” was all she said about it.

Too bad he never thought to ask her what she thought of insurance companies so poor that consumerwatchdog.org feels compelled to rent a billboard just so they can warn people about them, and the fact that billboard had to be removed. I think that says a lot more about the state of the world than artistic mangos do.

Money might buy protection, but it seems like all the money Mercury makes is to protect Mercury Insurance. Or to buy votes, apparently. The FBI looked their way a couple times while investigating political corruption.

People need to do their homework when it comes to insurance. Hell, look into anything that’s meant to save lives or property or money or whatever. And, if you can’t do the homework yourself, at least check if the watchdogs have. They care about getting the right information out to the public. Public safety is their business.

The One Minion Search Party, volume 25

This is a good one, for all kinds of jumping off reasons:

how do i know if it’s faith or delusion

Delusions can be cured with the right pill.

No, seriously, that’s a really good question, and I’m glad a search for the answer led here, so I could see it and respond, albeit not when Anonymous Reader is needing it. Perhaps A.R. will come across this at some point.

I saw it on a blog somewhere a while back as a random comment and I wish I’d been paying attention to where. It was something like, a president can say he talks to god every day and he’s sane. If he says he talks to god through a hair dryer, he’s insane.

Results of a study were mentioned earlier this year in New Scientist that seemed to indicate that those who say they talk to god light up the same bit of the brain as people who talk to imaginary friends in general. Just the feeling that you’re talking to someone lights up the brain, be it god or Santa Claus.

Previous studies have found that the prefrontal cortex is not activated when people interact with inanimate objects, such as a computer game. “The brain doesn’t activate these areas because they don’t expect reciprocity, nor find it necessary to think about the computer’s intentions,” says Schjødt.

He says the results show people believe they are talking to someone when they pray, an outcome that pleased both atheists and Christians: “Atheists said it shows that it’s all an illusion,” says Schjødt, while Christians said it was evidence that God is real.

Robin Dunbar at the University of Oxford points out that the study proves neither: “This has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, only with subjects’ beliefs about whether God exists.”

I highlighted the last bit because I thought it was important. Same goes for a delusion about someone’s invisible friend, probably. We assume there are no invisible people around because it’s rational to think so but kids will still design friends for themselves that no one else can see. Why? Is it built into the brain to delude ourselves for pleasure? Or do we do it for our sanity? Delusions aren’t necessarily bad, either, not if they ultimately lead to worthwhile things.

I’ve just reminded myself of a book that should have made my 15 books in 15 minutes list and I’m kicking myself for not including it now. There’s a bit in Hogfather by Terry Pratchett that I love mentioning and it’s near the end of the book, but not an ending spoiler if someone does wind up wanting to read it. Susan Sto Helit is talking to her grandfather, Death (really), about humanity and its proclivities.

‘All right,’ said Susan. ‘I’m not stupid. You’re saying humans need … fantasies to make life bearable.’

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

‘Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little–’

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

‘So we can believe the big ones?’

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

‘They’re not the same at all!’

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET– Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME … SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

‘Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point–’

MY POINT EXACTLY.

At the end of the conversation, Death makes a good point about humanity, in that we need to believe in things like that, things that aren’t real and tangible and quantifiable, so we can make them real. Mercy is worth having faith in. Justice, too. If you want to believe and have faith that God is the way to both, go for it. Whether you’re right or not, at least you’re aiming for something good and worthwhile.

Advice Avenue via Atheist Street no. 3

I’ve encountered a couple of Billy Graham’s advice column responses and done posts about them to offer an alternative view and now I’ve discovered he recently wrote about the rise of atheism, calling it “a fad only fools follow.”

Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist wrote a rebuttal worth reading and I thought I’d take a stab at replying, too.

So, the letter:

Why does atheism seem to be growing so much in recent years? I guess there have always been people around who didn’t believe in God, but atheists seem to be in the public eye a lot more than they used to be. — M.M.

Yeah, I think there have always been, too. Why atheism is more known about now, though, might have something to do with the way people in the world can express themselves now. It’s easier getting news out that shows the trouble religions are causing (and trouble specific religious people are causing) when so much of the world is connected to a media outlet such as the internet. It’s easier now to show that there’s another way to think and live independently of religious regamentalism and preachy propaganda and still be good and do worthwhile things.

Atheism grows because people are finally becoming aware of the choice to be an atheist. That it’s okay to not believe what a church says is true. That it’s okay to question. In fact, I think it’s pretty depressing how many generations of people have grown up satisified with “God did it” as the be-all end-all answer to everything. How can that be a satisfactory answer? I’m glad people all throughout history have found answers beyond that non-answer. In the end it doesn’t matter if they were devout believers or what. They knew there was more to know and didn’t stop until they had cured diseases or invented airplanes or designed telescopes.

It’s human nature to ask questions and it seems to to be the nature of church to only answer certain questions and skirt around other ones with answers that can’t be proven with anything other than the faith they’ve been pushing. A lot of people now see an answer like, “God works in mysterious ways,” as a very lame cop-out and want real facts about nature and space and biology. Real answers and proof that can be measured and duplicated, not just prayer and platitudes and a “God Bless.”

Billy’s reaction to this question is as follows:

Yes, atheism has been in the public eye more in recent years, largely because of a few atheists who’ve captured the public’s attention through their books. They aren’t large in number, but they do tend to be aggressive in promoting their ideas.

I’m not parading the streets shouting that god lovers should go to the hell they love to threaten us with. I’m not torching churches or attacking people because I don’t like how they think. I’m not aggressively promoting my ideas. I could, I suppose, but I’m not out to alienate people who do want to put their faith in some ineffible, supernatural being. They can if they want. I just want the space and freedom to make the point that life can be just as worthwhile and joyful without all of that.

Why have they drawn so much attention? One reason, I believe, is because they know how to use the media very effectively. They also appeal to people who want to be free from God or any moral restraints. Like the philosophers of Paul’s day who were constantly looking for new ideas to debate, many people today eagerly latch on to the latest fad (see Acts 17:21). Atheism attracts their attention, at least for a while.

Yeah, okay. Some “backsliders” walk the penitent path and return to the fold, ashamed of doubting and then reaffirm their faith as if they never had the idea to leave at all. Others de-convert for good, and I think that alarms church leaders more than anything. They’ve had control and power for so long, they’re used to dominating every level of the mind and body. Now people have stood up and said, screw that, and more and more people are coming to the same conclusion. Then, the religious right has to find something to blame so they blame something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer for it. It has nothing to do with the way the church itself operates, no never ever.

This idea that no god equals no morality is a thorn in the atheist’s side, though. That’s a fallacious assumption. Sure, there probably are atheists committing atrocities but we aren’t all immoral anymore than every Christian agrees with Fred Phelps.

Atheism attracts attention because vocal atheists are making good on their promises, that life can still be worth living without a deity involved. Frankly, I think it’s more than a little disturbing how a group can say in one breath, “Jesus is love” and in the next be joyfully wishing all those who don’t agree with them an eternity tortured by hellfire. How do they justify the illogic of that? Encouraging obedience via threats and fear hardly seems like love.

In reality, however, modern atheists have very little new to say. In fact, atheism has been around for thousands of years; even the Psalmist, writing hundreds of years before Christ, referred to them: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’ ” (Psalm 14:1).

Don’t be misled by those who claim God doesn’t exist, because he does. And the ultimate reason we know it is because he came down from heaven and walked on this earth in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ was God in human flesh, and he proved it by rising from the dead.

But the only proof we have of that is one book, put together by people who had a political agenda they were pushing at the time. There’s no corroborating evidence of any of that, although people keep looking and hoping and praying for it.

I’d say don’t continue to be misled by all the people who claim God does exist, because he probably doesn’t. The reason we know it is because we’re learning more about the world with every passing day. We’ve looked at the history of other cultures who had gods too and why they died out. We’ve seen what’s going on in space and we know how many years it took the light from a supernova to get here. We know what’s going on inside an atom and we know we might not be seeing all that as it happens either because some particles are moving pretty damned fast. We know the earth is a lot older than 6000 years because we know there were dinosaurs and we know humans didn’t ride them like ponies.

What we don’t know, we’ll keep trying to find out until we do. The attempt to find an answer is just as important as the answers we’ll find, maybe moreso.

There’s probably more I could add, but I think I’ll stop there. Read Hemant’s response if you haven’t already. He’s said it all better than I ever could.

Morality dilemma

Actually, the answer’s pretty obvious as to what I should do in this instance, but I’m still going to set the stage for “advice” about it.

A co-worker of mine likes me, thinks of me as a “little sister” as a matter of fact, and said as much yesterday after I helped her solve a minor computer thing.

A few weeks ago she was away for dental work and I took over some of her workload for those few days, since people panic if their newspapers and the only copy of Variety is a day late getting on the shelves.

The first term I worked there, I was one of three people who shared a rotation when it came to filling in for this person. Somewhere between then and this term now, it’s dropped down to just me. My supervisor has explained that he’s considering it to be part of my weekly duties to fill in there when the need arises. I just never know if I’m supposed to do everything I’m capable of doing (which can take up to two hours if the stuff piles up) or if I should just get the newspapers and vital weekly magazines circulating and leave the month/seasonal stuff for her return. I usually wind up doing all I know how to do if she’s away for more than two days because it doesn’t feel right to leave it sit.

So, here’s the conscience crunch: after her dental business she thanked me for my help by giving me a couple cinnamon buns. I went over and told her she didn’t have to do that, but I did keep them because hey! Cinnamon buns are awesome and delicious.

She was away again recently and I came to work this morning and found another mysterious bag on my desk. Cat bookends. I mentioned yesterday about not getting to have a cat in my apartment and today I have cat knicknacks on my desk.

Obviously I cannot keep them, no matter how well they’d fit in my living room. I doubt anyone else gets gifts of a simliar nature just for doing their jobs around here and accepting this amounts to approval of favourtism, doesn’t it?

I’m glad she thinks highly of me and my help but I think it crosses the line in a workplace. If I’d done a favour for her outside work, I’d be more than happy to keep them as payment.

I should write her a nice thank-you note and tell her I appreciate the thought and leave it with the bag on her desk after she leaves for the day. Right?

But, would it be also appropriate to keep them but offer to reimburse for her the cost of them? I really do like them and it’d save me the trouble of hunting for another pair.

Dilemma dilemma.

Thoughts?

A three for one advice special, faith related

Okay, this might be interesting. I see on TheStar.com website a question posed by a reader about a situation she has at home and I’m guessing the editor has added the note that another columnist was also given the question, or a similar one, and answered it elsewhere. So I’ll highlight both and add my own thoughts.

The question, as provided by Ken Gallagher:

My husband and I have a 6-year-old daughter we are raising without a religion. We teach morals but without a superior being.

My husband’s mom is a devout Christian. On grandma-visits, she and my daughter sing religious songs, read religious books and grandma keeps saying, “Jesus loves you.”

We have no problem with that; we believe the Jesus story is a myth and reading books and singing songs are fine. But it’s gone overboard.

Although Grandma knows our beliefs, she tells us she prays that we will have her granddaughter christened. Grandma phones on Sundays and asks our daughter if she’s been to church. When we visited their house, I thought Grandma was reading a bedtime story; no, she was getting my daughter to say her prayers.

My daughter says she wishes Grandma would not talk about God. I don’t want to hurt my mother-in-law, but I don’t understand why Christians can’t respect that not everyone believes as they do.

Ken’s two word response: Blame Jesus. It’s his fault. He told his disciples to preach to the masses, and preach they continue to do. Grandma is doing what she thinks is going to help this girl in times of trouble, like any friend or family member might do. He also uses those warnings people send about computer viruses as an example, looking out for our safety, then offers this advice:

Sit down with your mother-in-law, and make her understand that while you respect her faith convictions, they are not yours. Help her to hear, in positive terms, the values with which you are raising your daughter – but make clear that those convictions do not include a “superior being.” And be clear that while she is welcome to spend time with your daughter, that time is not to be used to inflict upon her a faith which you neither share nor affirm.

I agree with this suggestion. Thank her for taking an interest, but ask her to back off on the bible thumpery. My mother wound up doing the same with an aunt of mine who tearfully admitted she’d been trying to bring me to Jesus. Mother wasn’t going to let me go, and that was final. I still got to play with my cousin, but maybe not as often as we had been…

Here’s the letter Ellie Tisher received:

My mother-in-law is a devout Christian and we’re not. We don’t impose our beliefs on her but the respect isn’t reciprocated. Every chance she gets with our daughter, she pushes her beliefs.

When our daughter stayed there for a week, she was pressed with religious stories, songs and saying prayers at night. It was very confusing and foreign to my daughter at age 4 and 5. She told me (without my prodding) that she wishes her grandmother would stop talking about Jesus and God.

My husband is reluctant to act because religion is very important to his mom. What’s appropriate behaviour for all of us? I’ve tried to explain to my daughter that some people believe in different things. We also stress that one person’s viewpoint is not better than another’s. She’s now 6 and able to understand a little better.

Ellie suggests that this is a good time for a lesson on tolerance for others and their views.

Structure your daughter’s exposure to your mother-in-law, convey compassion and respect for an elder’s religious devotion and gradually teach your daughter about approaches to faith and cultures beyond your own. You shouldn’t be using grandmother as a babysitter for extended periods (or anyone else whose beliefs you don’t want pushed at your child).

Visit your mother-in-law as a family. When religion is raised as a topic, gently change the subject. As your daughter matures – and if you have given her the grounding for having her own strong convictions – you can relax about grandmother’s influence.

My agnostic folks are honest, hardworking people who’ve always cared about their siblings and maintain a good relationship with all of them (although it’s a bit of a trick on Mom’s side). Mom never shirks on volunteering and helping the neighbours, and the same goes for Dad. They may have disagreed with my aunt and uncle’s religious lifestyle but never let that put a wedge between them. Family is too important to them. As a support system, it’s too vital to be taken lightly. Yeah, it’s an added level of stress sometimes (one of Mom’s sisters comes to mind) but they’d never dream of not helping if necessary. Not because it’s the Christian thing to do, but because it’s the right thing to do.

If this family can give their daughter what my parents gave me, she’ll be fine. I wound up with a lot of devout Christian friends while in school yet here I am with an atheist blog and no criminal record. Well done, parents. Well done.