|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/13/2010 : 22:06:27 [Permalink]
|
moakley wrote: | Personally, I see a willingness to change ones mind, due to the recognition/understanding of better data or the revelation of bad data or no data, as a strength of character. |
I fully agree. And having stigmas against such changes for any reason (such as that one is raising children at the time) only leads to harmful discrimination and people denying who they really are out of fear of retribution. Children are impacted by parents changing, but children are impacted by any changes in their lives. In reality, people do change over time, so why should we assume that children would be harmed by learning that through watching their parents? It might be uncomfortable for the children, but it is not harmful. Just like moving to a new place, losing a beloved family member, and entering a new stage of life and responsibility are all uncomfortable. And they all teach us about the world and help us build character. If there is nothing wrong with this guy coming to agnosticism (and there isn't - everyone follows their own philosophical path) then there is nothing wrong with his kids witnessing this development in a way that is honest and open. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2010 : 00:50:36 [Permalink]
|
| Right so you would fully agree if he been born again too? |
 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
 Posted - 12/14/2010 : 06:02:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Right so you would fully agree if he been born again too?
|
Did he decide to be born again due to better data? Unlikely. Did he decide to be born again because he found it consoling? I have no problem with a decision in favor of faith due to the faithful finding it consoling. Claiming evidence for faith eliminates the need for faith.
edited: not - no |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
| Edited by - moakley on 12/14/2010 10:52:50 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2010 : 07:43:05 [Permalink]
|
OFFC | Right so you would fully agree if he been born again too? |
YES.
I suspect that most people convert to agnosticism for good reasons and become born again for really dumb reasons. That said, individuals do things for all sorts of reasons, and I've met people who became agnostic for really dumb reasons, and I can imagine a conversion to born again Christianity from agnosticism that reflects a deeper examination of the world (one could, for instance, be agnostic as a default position, not because of any thoughtful consideration.
People's belief systems change for many reasons. Some rational, some emotional. Often for reasons they themselves don't even completely understand. The change itself is nobody's business but the person experiencing it. And kids shouldn't be protected from such changes experienced by their parents. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/14/2010 07:44:36 |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2010 : 21:32:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
People's belief systems change for many reasons. Some rational, some emotional. Often for reasons they themselves don't even completely understand. The change itself is nobody's business but the person experiencing it. And kids shouldn't be protected from such changes experienced by their parents.
|
Well, firstly I think the kids business as it affects them directly.
The judge's job is to look out for the children so that makes it literally, his business too.
Secondly I don't think a religious awakening/conversion/lapse is always a sign of positive reflection on our existence, sometimes it just means that person is a flake or they are very easily influenced by others, or they've been through something traumatic.
One thing it ALWAYS is is a time of change. A major change in life by definition is the opposite of stability, which is what children need. The case can be made that the judge is siding with stability, not siding with christianity.
Also correct me if I'm wrong but he lost custody (they had 50/50 rights), he didn't lose all rights for visitation too. This is just a personaly opinion of mine tagged on but I think haveing a time-share on children is a pretty crappy way to raise kids. |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 12/14/2010 : 23:36:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
One thing it ALWAYS is is a time of change. A major change in life by definition is the opposite of stability, which is what children need. The case can be made that the judge is siding with stability, not siding with christianity. |
I would have thought that virtually loosing access to one of your parents would be a major loss of stability, especially as there has been a 50/50 split the last four years. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2010 : 01:27:47 [Permalink]
|
| what a surprise that people come out of the woodwork just to disagree with me. In this case obviously it went to court because one or both parties felt the current situation was not working. So change is pretty inevitable on this front at least. And does it say the father lost access? My understanding is that he lost custody. Custody =/= access. |
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2010 : 06:08:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
One thing it ALWAYS is is a time of change. A major change in life by definition is the opposite of stability, which is what children need. The case can be made that the judge is siding with stability, not siding with christianity.
|
Since you, and now I, are not substantiating our claims here's mine. There are many changes that can lead to greater stability by elimintaing some internal conflict. The conflict here being adherence to what a good deal of society dictates as a norm while realizing that that norm is completely unevidenced. Belief for the sake of belief may not lead to greater stability due to its inherent inconsistency in how the supporting data must be evaluated, or contrary evidence ignored, when considering this norm. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2010 : 10:01:39 [Permalink]
|
On fire for Christ:
And does it say the father lost access? My understanding is that he lost custody. |
His access went from 50/50 to four hours a week according to the article. That's not much visitation. I read the court document. What could he have done to deserve such a harsh treatment by the court? Assault wasn't alleged, though anger was. But that's not uncommon and no where does it say that it was directed at anyone but the wife. He brought the case because he alleged that she was neglectful, leaving them alone and so on. That's another thing that went uncontested, or as the document put it, "the evidence suggests.." So where does that leave us? He's angry, she's possibly neglectful and oh yes, he is not a Christian anymore which is the only thing that was mentioned more than once.
Now, I wasn't in on the hearings. I wasn't there. So I'm hesitant to say what went down, although I have my suspicions. We will see when this thing is appealed.
And yeah, such limited access to the father is far more destabilizing for the children than just about anything I can think of. If I were a betting person, I would bet that the judgment will be overturned based on what I know about the case, which isn't all that much... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/15/2010 : 17:30:33 [Permalink]
|
OFFC wrote: Well, firstly I think the kids business as it affects them directly.
The judge's job is to look out for the children so that makes it literally, his business too. |
No. Everything about a parent affects children they raise, but that doesn’t automatically make it the kids business or something for a judge to consider in a custody case. Examples: if a close friend of a parent suddenly dies. If a parent has strong political leanings. Hell, if a parent begins suffering from sexual disfunction. We don’t scrutinize every little aspect of a parent’s private life, even though obviously what goes on in our personal lives does impact our day to day moods and decisions. I grew up with a father who refuses to discuss his personal religious beliefs. He didn’t want to share them and it isn’t my business, although I’m sure whatever his beliefs are had some impact on how he raised me.
OFFC wrote: | Secondly I don't think a religious awakening/conversion/lapse is always a sign of positive reflection on our existence, sometimes it just means that person is a flake or they are very easily influenced by others, or they've been through something traumatic. |
I never said that every change in religious belief is a positive thing.
OFFC wrote: | One thing it ALWAYS is is a time of change. A major change in life by definition is the opposite of stability, which is what children need. |
When we say children benefit from stability that doesn’t mean that any change is harmful. Sometimes changes parents can’t help happen, and it doesn’t do children any good to pretend that everything is still the same. As I said before: | Children are impacted by parents changing, but children are impacted by any changes in their lives. In reality, people do change over time, so why should we assume that children would be harmed by learning that through watching their parents? It might be uncomfortable for the children, but it is not harmful. Just like moving to a new place, losing a beloved family member, and entering a new stage of life and responsibility are all uncomfortable. And they all teach us about the world and help us build character. |
Hawks also made an excellent point on change and stability in this particular case.
| The case can be made that the judge is siding with stability, not siding with christianity. |
I would be just as outraged if the case was the same except Christianity and agnosticism were switched. Are you saying that you’d find it acceptable if a formally agnostic parent lost time with their child because they converted to born again Christianity?
| This is just a personaly opinion of mine tagged on but I think haveing a time-share on children is a pretty crappy way to raise kids. |
Do you have a better solution given the circumstances?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Parent denied custody
