JG Ballard used one of them (The Crucifixion considered as a downhill Bicycle Race) as the basis for his story (The Assassination of JFK as an uphill Motor Race), in The Atrocity Exhibition.

Ireland almost completely lacked that culture. Even the space in which it might exist. I used to wonder why -- I put it down to the semi-theocracy that emerged after independence in the 1920s, with the new state's rulers eager to impress Rome with their obedience. This is the old repressive censor-ridden Ireland that creative types in pubs used to complain about. Now they're both gone.

Since I was publishing Jarryesque stuff in the 70s, I never felt particularly victimized by all this. Even back then it was starting to fade. But when it went - when clerical influence simply vanished and priests became rare and irrelevant - it was still a surprise.

I've just found out they actually had *two* defenestrations, in 1418 and 1619. Like it's the Bohemian national sport. Further complicated by the fact that the king at the time is known as Vaclav in Czech, Wenzel in German, and Wenceslaus in English.

There are a lot of religions out there, most are rather dangerous when in the hands of corrupt manipulators, but speaking of yours truly; I "educated" my*self* on the subject of religion, God, existence - which led to my writing out of the Catholic Church, to which I belonged since my idiotic "child baptizement" - but your way of hoarding Xtianity, with no distinctions, comes across to me as bloated, swollen, turgid, pompous, bombastic and grandiloquent, whatever the fruck that means... heh -- OK I may overstate my qualifications here a bit, but it felt good typing them.

Of course there exists such a thing as religous education, the problem is that there are so many ways to do it WRONGLY, but that then becomes a matter of study and reflection, both by the mind and heart - if that is a duo-quality/concept you understand - to try and "correct".

Here in the US, the independent agency that certifies energy efficiency of doors and windows is the National Fenestration Rating Council:

http://www.nfrc.org/

Then again, most of us sceptics seem to have survived the credulous age.

Anyway, back to school. First grade, say, as I believe it's called. Nice lady teacher. "Right kids, today we'll do drugs education. Will we do heroin? Cocaine? No, I know, it's time for your first little LSD trips ... tongues out, children."

The most dangerous indoctrination, in- and outside of schools, resides for example in the hatred and frustration instilled, following abuse, when a father hits his kid, and the mom looks away as if nothing happened, denies it.

My point is, that you have to find out what breeds what, and in what order, and then how it interacts with such a concept as potentially disastrous as religious wars, that are fought since the dawn of time... Break down the elements involved...

It's terrifying, but while disqualifying religion, you must also take into account the emotional and psychological "breeding ground" for such awful excesses.

Muddying things up in that regard, and assigning the scape goat to "religious education at a young age" - doesn't cut it IMO.

In most cases the child growing up will be able to discern and identify the fairy tales as an adolescent, or a bit later in life, PROVIDED s/he has been brought up to think of his/herself, outside the box, and is not a too emotionally scarred person.

I suppose we can agree that they're all negative in some way. And yet relatively few people survive unscathed without a brush with at least one of them. While the 'higher' things in life can go horribly wrong - Hitler, poor fool, thought he was an artist and that modernists were degenerate.

I went back to my elementary school days, in order to find out and define what it encompassed. First, I do not remember having had Bible Classes, and I think for the most part the morning class was not preceded by a prayer of some kind. I lived in the south of A'dam, as I said, and even though the majority of children were likely Roman Catholic, the teachers weren't even *required* to be religiously active, let alone be Roman Catholic - yet in name, I attended a catholic school. We're talking about the 1970's, by the way. So, as for our little family, I only had learned the "Our Father" and "Holy Mary" (what a joke in itself, and so in contradiction with the scripture) - and basically, I was taught to "jam it out" before every meal, like a beefed-up robot, and before going to bed... My mom though, who had to convert from protestantism (Lutheranism to be precise) to marry my dad without too much "hassle", always objected to the warp speed robot-like blurting out of those prayers, and it even was accepted for Roman Catholic men, to curse and swear like there was no tomorrow.

Striking thing is, that you wouldn't have had to drive more than an hour, to find completely different attitudes towards being a Catholic. Historically, the Netherlands has been the biggest melting pot in Europe (but you'd know more about that than I do) of all kinds of christian beliefs, and the main pillar in my neck of the woods in the 70's was: TOLERANCE - (Boy how would that come back to bite us, but that's another borin topic.)

Religion wasn't that "in" anymore.

Basically the only thing we were taught, vaguely perhaps, is to practise the fruits of the spirit, which amounted to just try and be nice to your neighbour, but compared to the devoted Catholics we, the rich folk from Amsterdam, were of course savages, only in pursuit of wealth and luxury.

But the tiny bit that was taught to the children of my neighbourhood, were just the normal things like do not steal, be respectful, and say your prayers. Your salvation had been taken care of by Christ, now go and have a ball, and try and go to confession, or at least apologize, if you've slept with the irresitable hot secretary at work.

Nothing remotely resembling any kind of doctrine, though essentially, as a kid, you are automatically influenced by the behaviour of the people surrounding you, influencing you. But that aside.

It was all very liberal in nature, and of course a few hours drive to the south, or north, and a whole different set of values and practise of belief could be encountered, and with a little effort one can argue that children "suffered" from a form of indoctrination, but really, the people my parents engaged with, were all rather liberal, and if there was a friend whose children we thought were brought up too strict, religiously, we'd probably end up having less contact with them.

Of course there were the kids who were severly beaten for doing something wrong, as daddy was god's "stand-in," to inflict instant punishment on the disobeying rascal, and that is precisely where I join you in your criticism; the corporal punishment, religious fanaticism, and the corrupting of the children's minds, coupled with emotional blackmail.

But it hardly links one on one to religious education, though in the most strict christian denominations, there was, and is undoubtedly very close linkage.

In fact, where I grew up, it was "not done" at the time, to use any kind of force in some form of religious upbringing, or even weekly church attendance.

The dutch were smart enough to figger out that when they wanted to spend a nice weekend at your luxury yacht in Vinkeveen, sunday church had to be skipped. An extra prayer on moday would take care of that.

To recap, for most of my generation, the little bit of reli-education we got was to try and practise the Fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Of course hardly managing acceptably in half of the aforementioned, teaching that to your kids wasn't really dangerous indoctrination, either.

But the negative and harmful excesses are always there, and they are caused by a complex of factors, religious fanaticism and indoctrination being one of them, no doubt.

I think that is the (left out) essence of my usual flowery and three times too long previous post.

<achieve> I could pontificate at great length on that point. I don't care for labels, but I think most people would label me a Fundamentalist. I have no kids, but I worry often about how the kids in church are taught. I just don't know how much they should be taught. I really don't want a bunch of robots responding to what has been inputted into their hard drive. Nor do I want parrots regurgitating what they've been shovel fed.

There's also an issue of what happens when kids grow up and discover not everyone thinks the same as they do. A lot of people lose their religious identity in their late teens/early 20's when they conclude their religious education/training really was indoctrination and not much more.

Perhaps best would be to live in a community, where information and religious education are optional, that is, purely the choice of the maturing child alone to decide and take part in, though it's only logical that any one/parent would encourage his/her kid to research and adhere to their passionate beliefs, and avoid contact with the "other side" at all cost.

We plant, we water, but who was it that makes it grow? ;)

Unfortunately the extent to which people go in planting and watering, are viewed upon differently, euphemistically speaking.

Your Non-Fundie traits include: actually listening to other people, engaging with them, and caring what they think; acknowledging that your belief system might not be perfect, but is the best you've found so far. I could go on.

But we don't live in villages anymore, and people are very likely to run into many other beliefs. There comes a point where they can't all be demonized.

<dom> Not the God of the Bible. I take exception to many people who affirm Christianity but don't seem to be bothered they don't know what/why/how they believe.

Matthew 22:34-38, NIV: <Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul <<and>> with all your <<mind>>.' This is the first and greatest commandment. >

The answers are right there to be found, read and multiply verifyable. (Canonicity)

Also, I have to admit that I wanted to post the same reaction to <Ohio>'s statement as <Dom> - that he was considered a Fundamentalist, but refrained because of lack of balls, unsureness, partly, and because I figured he meant that in an alternative expressive use; that of principaled, unwavering, and strongly opinionated, supported by solid foundation in research and study, bordering to stubborn.

Excuse me my spelling/syntax errors, if there are any. (No doubt)

Interesting is that many bible books written by profets (Daniel, Zefanja, etc.) were extremely impopular in their time, as they criticized and lamented the awful state and shallowness of the (lack of) 'faith' - as practised by Israel/Judah.

It's really a clear header in front of an open goal to notice the analogy to the times we live in, now.

Organized religion is terribly impure, and as strong as my belief is, as critical I am of organized religious groups in Holland.

Difficult therefore is to explain a concept like "The god of the Bible" ...

Things change, huh? And we've helped change them. I remember the surprise when the forum system evolved - assisted by Ohio, twinlark and yours truly, among others - during the first Nickel game.

Along the way, the notion of on-topicness has mutated massively. People have learned to be free to talk about whatever they want, as long as it doesn't manifestly break the rules. I like the way CG has grown into a cross between social networking, themed discussion, and raw chess.