I wanted to respond further to Jim's post, and Kimberly made a similar point, on the question of whether parents should expose their children to positive portrayals of unbelief.

First of all, what I said was, 'Atheist and others whose beliefs are out of the mainstream should be encouraged to express their views in comics. It's especially important that children be exposed to positive portrayals of unbelief at an early age, to give them the intellectual tools they need to make up their own minds.'

The second sentence was intended to be read in the context of the first, and my intent was to recommend what artists should do, and not necessarily what parents should do.

I think James Colville knows what I had in mind-- that material should be available in the all-ages market that fairly represents non-Christian beliefs.

Of course, I understand that religious parents want to protect their children from ideas that are destructive of their religious faith. This is especially understandable, since often the parents' own faith is barely holding on by a thread. It takes a very strong exertion of will to continue to believe something that isn't true.

But the sheltering of young minds from ideas is a very destructive act. Not only does it hamper them in making up their mind about religion; it distorts their understanding of history and the world at large.

Worst of all, it sets up a barrier between parents and children. The kids soon learn what the real world is about, and think it's a sad joke that their parents refuse to acknowledge it.

Nice to hear from 'Rachel H.', who I'm pretty sure is the creator of the best minicomics currently published in America. Rachel, your stories do a good job of demonstrating to young people the value of questioning what adults tell you, and learning to make up your own mind. That's exactly the kind of 'positive portrayal' that I think will do the most good.

Just my two cents.
I don't believe that Christianity is anymore "Mainstream" America than Atheism.(Notice that both beliefs are capitalized as to not show that one belief system is any greater than the other!)
From my perspective most of America is agnostic at best. This usually changes at a moment of great distress.
The thing is- America offers a freedom to believe whatever an individual wants to believe. Morality and service to our fellow man should be the main goal not petty slams against those that have a differing point of view. We should all aspire to be greater people regardless of religious affiliation.
Sam Edmisten, RHP http://www.redhillsonline.com

Joe,
It is pointless for us to engage in even the subtlest of idealogical jousting when it seems we both agree that artists, writers, etc. should be allowed to express themselves as they choose. At least, I thought that was the point I made earlier - a support for the rights of creators to deal with subjects as they see fit. Nowhere did I indicate that censorship of any kind be tolerated. However, it is no more your right or obligation to direct my children to the philosophy of atheism than it is your right or obligation to paint my house. I have already expressed that such is not my right to force my opinions on your offspring either. Fact is that my faith is not "barely holding on by a thread" but is in fact strong enough to allow for tolerance of others' viewpoints. I should hope the atheism you embrace is likewise.

Best,
Kimberly Edmisten,
RHP http://www.redhillsonline.com

JM,

Can you cite Einstein's theory of relativity? Just want to see if you really know what you are talking about....By the way, the theory of relativity wasn't promoted in the public school system when I was going...

I don't feel any type of sci-fi religion should be in schools that has not been proven...Heck, I have problems with the sci-fi plate tectonics(sp) nonsense...

Slam on christians...Okay that puts you in the same category as Nero....Same analogy Hitler used on the Jews not too long ago....
Yeh, I know the morbid joke...Lions 2, Christians 0.

Care to talk about the Inquisition? By the way, I haven't told ya what affiliation I am. A clue, though....I am what Lincoln was.

John,

Before you display your obvious lack of intelligence of where words come from, the word religion is derived from a greek/maybe latin word which means man's ideas man's concepts...which is why Communism is classified as a religion, so is atheism....

Anyone care to debate universal negatives?
Charles couldn't....By the way, have you kept up to Gould's evolving arguments in the last ten years? They are hysterical! That's why evolution theory is constantly evolving...what a moving target....

HULK SMASH PUNY ARGUMENTS!!! That is something I think Charles can understand...Hahahaha!!!!


Sam

[This message has been edited by Samuel Catalino (edited 10-10-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Samuel Catalino (edited 10-10-1999).]

This is as far as I wish to go in debating Sam over universal quantification (which is what I assume he's referring to by 'universal negation'):

There is a purring, flying platypus.

There is no purring, flying platypus.

Damn! Poor Sam is now an agnostic when it comes to the existence of the purring, flying platypus.

I think most rational individuals will understand my drift when I state atheism is the default position, it's up to the believers to prove their assertions. Unless one has a good reason for believing in the existence of some asserted entity X, then one shouldn't believe in X (to do so would lead to schizophrenia).

"B-b-b-but, you can't absolutely prove evolution either." Yeah, sure, but nothing is absolutely provable from a finite standpoint (i.e., our standpoint), so we go with the best explanation. This was, of course, essentially Jean-Marc's point, but only the rational among us were capable of understanding it.

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 10-10-1999).]

Joe & Jamie: Alright, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Though I agree with a lot of what has been said above I think there is another aspect to the subject of exposure to conflicting beliefs.

Namely that I feel young children should be left out of the issue altogether. Philosophical and religious questions rarely begin to impact upon peoples lives until their mid to late teens and up until this point most children are content to accept whatever religion they've been raised with. Having a religion (whatever it might be) which they can accept as fact can be a very reassuring and comforting influence in a childs life (much like the existence of Santa Claus, not all untruths are harmful). Opening up the veracity of their beliefs to question can throw their entire world into turmoil and, at this early stage, is likely to do more harm than good.

Most children by their very nature aren't equipped with the "intellectual tools" to deal with deep philosophical issues, while on the other hand by the time the hit their mid-teens they're likely to question pretty much everything their parents hold as true. It may be helpful in some cases for children to doubt what their parents tell them but I think you'll agree that it would be better if they didn't have to, ignorance can be a blessing as a child. Why not concentrate on opening up their parents minds instead?

Rachel: There's no sick bottom but your own sick bottom? I was never very good at it in school but I'm totally lost now.

Charles: Agnosticism I think, rather than atheism, would be the default. ('pologies for my pedanticism)

My pedantic return volley:

Give me some reasons for thinking there's a 50/50 chance that there's a god, and I'll accept agnosticism as the default. Agnosticism is an acceptable position only when one has good reason for accepting both alternatives. I haven't found any evidence for the existence of a god, other than it's a persistent unsupported claim.

Oh yeah:

Sam: "By the way, I haven't told ya what affiliation I am."

My guess: you're either a fundamentalist of some sort, or a person that never grew out of Ayn Rand.

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 10-10-1999).]

Charles,

One day, you may understand logic. Let me 'splain it to you.

Example of broad negative(which can be proven) although it would take a great deal of effort and time:

There is no such thing as a purring, flying dragon in the U.S.

Example of a universal negative:
(which can't be proven by humans)

There is no such thing as a purring, flying dragon in all the universe.

Did I need to qualify what the universe is?

Since evolution is not able to be proved by our finite minds, why do we accept it blindly as fact? You just proved me point, me son. At last you emerge from the darkseid.

It is apparent that Charles has read too much, too quickly and understood none of what he has read. Do I make myself clear, Lucy?

This is why I seldom waste my time debating folks who write a great deal and have no substance in what they write. Apparently, such individuals are in love with their keyboard and add nothing but AH arguments...

I'm finished with you Charles and your PUNY ARGUMENTS....HULK SMASH!!!! DOST THOU KNOWEST WHOM THOU DEALEST WITH, THY MORTAL FOOL? (Okay, my old english is lousy, I know).

Sometimes a little levity is necessary when dealing with some folks....

Sam




[This message has been edited by Samuel Catalino (edited 10-10-1999).]

Originally I had no intention of weighing in on this discussion; that changed when I read the following:

Joe: "Of course, I understand that religious parents want to protect their children from ideas that are destructive of their religious faith. This is especially understandable, since often the parents' own faith is barely holding on by a thread. It takes a very strong exertion of will to continue to believe something that isn't true."

As a Christian it does take some effort for me to hold onto my faith, but by no means am I "barely holding on by a thread". I simply believe what I believe and go about my business. I find it disturbing that a confessed Atheist would make such a wide reaching and uneducated statement about a practice they (seemingly) know little about. If anything, the more I learn about the world in which I live, the more it affirms my belief in God.

And I also disagree with the statement: "But the sheltering of young minds from ideas is a very destructive act. Not only does it hamper them in making up their mind about religion; it distorts their understanding of history and the world at large." I'm sorry, but it's the parents' right to raise their children as they see fit--it's not your right, nor anyone else's. By making such a statement, you cast yourself in the same mold as those Christian Coalition idiots who demand prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments on every street corner. (And while we're on the subject, you need to understand that the Christian Coalition and their hate spewing members represent a very small segment of Christianity.)

The thing I want to know is this: What if Pat Robertson were to show up here and post the following message?

"Christians whose beliefs are out of the mainstream should be encouraged to express their views in comics. It's especially important that children be exposed to positive portrayals of Christ and His teachings at an early age, to give them the intellectual and spiritual tools they need to make up their own minds and discover that Jesus Christ is the path to salvation."


I suspect such a message would be met with revulsion and universal disdain, but maybe I'm just a cynic.

------------------
My graphic novel Abel is available from Slave Labor Graphics. Check it out at http://www.slavelabor.com
http://members.xoom.com/wharms


[This message has been edited by William Harms (edited 10-10-1999).]

[This message has been edited by William Harms (edited 10-10-1999).]

[This message has been edited by William Harms (edited 10-10-1999).]

My mother often told of her most traumatic moment in childhood. She became embroiled in an argument with a classmate in second grade. Her friend insisted that there was no Santa Claus. My mom knew that there was because her parents had told her so.

When their teacher was consulted my mom was crushed to be told that her parents had told her something that wasn't true. Forty years later, she still bore the pain of that embarrasment. And her childhood vow that she would never lie to her children.

So I was never taught to believe in any of the common American childhood myths. No Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, no Santa.

She did, however, tell me a lot about the Baby Jesus and other stories that I now recognize as myths. When I came to my atheist conclusion as a teenager, I remember excitedly telling the person who I most respected intellectually. My aunt. My-aunt-the-nun. (Spoken as a single word like my-son-the-doctor.)

As my aunt, Sister Eustace, sat crying as she tried to explain the fundamental error of my thought process, I realized that there could be no benefit from this discussion. What, was I going to to convince her that she had spent sixty years of devotion to a fantasy?

So, I know both sides of this argument well. The fundamental (no pun intended) problem is that when you know the truth, I mean, KNOW THE TRUTH, it's hard to accept the foolish things other people believe. It's just that the alternative involves boiling oil, ropes, and all those other things that JM knows about because he was educated in France.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that Bullet Crow and Dick Duck, Duck Dick are still favorites of mine and if Jim Engel wishes to pray for the salvation of my soul, I'm honored (if not hopeful.)

Oh, and agnostics are just people who can't make a !@$% decision.

------------------
"I love him like a brother. David Greenglas." -- Woody Allen - Crimes & Misdemeanors