The Authoritarian Personality Type: Fundamentalist Christians on parental Rights part 2

[Tatarize]

It's not really a Poe, but additional views by leaning towards trolling. If they didn't do it, somebody else would and they'd end up being more popular. So by necessity the top folks are going to lean troll, if they didn't they wouldn't be top folks.

[longfootbuddy]

really?

[LithodidMan]

@longfootbuddy Yeah really. This video has nothing to do with schools, public or private but is about the ethics of proselytizing your beliefs as an individual to another parent's child.

[longfootbuddy]

@LithodidMan nothing to do with schools aye?

[longfootbuddy]

i have an idea, pick a private school you want your kid to go to, and pay for it your own damn self!

[LithodidMan]

@longfootbuddy ??? Not sure what this comment has to do with the topic.

[longfootbuddy]

@LithodidMan really?

[rejoin]

these ppl are convinced that their ideas are ultimatively right. If you think the worlds gonna end because ppl don't have the right faith that won't make you act morally upright. chances are bigger your gonna try anything to prevent the catastrohpy. I think the revival of authoritarian parenting is an incredible danger. People are again beeing raised into a strong vs. weak value system. It tops in the view that everybody deserves what he gets. even if its death and torture

[RobertMOdell]

you said it is hypocrisy to be for ability to convince others' kids about ideas but be against the government doing it. One was allowed by the parent, and the other an interaction mandated by law, so the parent is unable to disallow. Also, you need a control group over people willing to share their ideas with other kids, by those in possessing something definitive to share or not. If someone does not feel they possess something uniquely true, they will have to compulsion to share.

[LithodidMan]

In the first experiment (part 1) all of the three scenarios were about government teaching a)Christianity b)Islam c) atheism. The hypocrisy was that fundamentalist Christians believed that 'a' was a good idea, and their rational was that we live in a Christian nation and non-believers could home school, private school, or leave. However with option 'b' or 'c' said it was a bad idea (even if living in an Islamic nation) because it violated a parent's rights to raise their child as they wish....

[LithodidMan]

(cont'd) In experiment 1 moderate theists and atheists strongly were opposed to a,b, or c because they believed in the parent's right.

In experiment 2 (this video) fundamentalist christians and atheists were asked if they believed it was right to try to convert another parent's child to their beliefs. Again, the hypocrisy was that fundies tended to think it was alright to convert an atheist child, but wrong for someone to try to de-convert a Christian child. Atheists said BOTH were wrong.

[RobertMOdell]

@LithodidMan ok. but for experiment 2, where fundies think it was "wrong for someone to try to de-convert a Christian child", you specifically chose government mandate as opposed to a private person the fundies have allowed access to the child. I have no problem with people I expose my kids to sharing their beleifs, however I strongly oppose the government operating within that realm in any way.

[LithodidMan]

@RobertMOdell I think you misunderstood - there is absolutely no 'government mandate' in experiment two. I did discuss the results of experiment one but did not at all treat the two experiments as if the were directly cross-comparable. Rather than my convoluted explanations, I would suggest reading the Altemeyer study directly, it is free and all online.

[RobertMOdell]

It is an interesting topic, but I don't think you have parsed it very well. There is a difference between being involved with someone else's kid and government mandating of involvement with someone else's kid. How could you even think these were the same. If I allow my kid to interact with others, by default it means I am willing to have them share their ideas with my kids. Parents are responsible for those their kids come in contact with.

[LithodidMan]

@RobertMOdell 1) I never say these are the same in this video, not sure how you got that. I describe two separate experiments that both involve ideological indoctrination of a child. 2) I am describing the results and conclusions of experiments designed to test whether as a group fundamentalists are more or less open to exposing their children to alternative ideas or exposing other's children to their ideas.

How did I not 'parse' this very well?

[adifferenttype]

Your videos are very interesting. I am a youth pastor in a Christian church. I have a strong desire to see young people live their lives according to the Bible. However, I feel very strongly that it is not my choice, their school's choice, or even their parents choice to make. It is a personal choice and one that will likely affect the rest of their lives in some way. But I believe that my path is the right. path. does that make me a strong RWA?

[micprn]

ok i have the perfect example of athoritarian city

you steal something from a poor person the cops arrest the poor person for trying to protect his food

you resist arrest the cops shoot you in the brain after beating you to shit

every time you buy somthing or start your car a tracker logs that in and records your location and time

[pareidolian]

Speaking of whatever-argument-serves. I stumbled across a RW blog in which the blogger outright stated that hypocrisy could be a very good thing. His position was that it did not matter that Ted Haggard was secretly cavorting with male prostitutes. What mattered far more, according to this fellow, was that Haggard attacked all gays (except himself, obviously). I wonder if the blogger would have qualified as high RWA ;^/

I was stunned, but I suppose that I should not have been surprised.

[shelley0809]

Hypocracy most definatley! The child has rights all the way, the parent should only go by what questions the child raises & attempt at least to answer those questions. If the adult is not prepared & is not educated enough with certain subjects to give an answer to their child, a library is a good place to start, info given that is appropriate for the child's age of course. Beliefs where ever they lay should be the child's choice, not the parents said beliefs. Children 1st please!

[shelley0809]

I'm beginning to like this Bob Myers, he's right! Your children have the right to have a belief that they make of their own accord, or indeed not to take on board a belief. This should be more in the later teens to adult if they choose a belief, they do so according to their own personality. Children should not be an extention of their parents, or thier beliefs entoe! That is just plain wrong, the child has rights not the parents!

[FredricF]

I cannot understand how a fundamentalist christians could answer these questions in any other way.

In fact someone that did not could not really be a "true" christian because they are obviously not convinced that their God is the only true God and their religion is not the only one while the Bible spell out very clear that this must be their position.

Fundies make much more sense to me than "non-fundies" in that way.

[LithodidMan]

I see and agree with your point. It is similar to how I view Calvinism, I find it repulsive on all levels but recognize it is the most honest viewpoint among Christian theologies. It bypasses the whole "I love you and I know everything but you can still surprise me and be doomed to the eternal punishment I created". Calvinism is more along Ash's line from Army of Darkness, "Good.... bad..., I am the one with the gun" (forgive the oversimplification!)

[wolfwing1]

While I think parents have a right to raise their kids how they want, at what point does religion become abuse? I'm of the mind that like smoking/drinking/porn/gambling there should be a age requirement, you can't go into a church or teach your kids untill they are at lesat 18 or something, old enough to decide for themselves what they want to learn. No clue how it could be enforced, or even if it should...but it would save alot of kids pain.

[Danmill23]

I'm really enjoying your videos.

I like your point about understanding. I believe no one behaves irrationally. All people do things for a reason. Sometimes not the best reason or not a logically sound or consistent reason, but they do behave reasonably within their own understanding.

To avoid never understanding people and thus using a short cut term like "idiot" when referring to them you need to strive to understand the web of "rationality" they use to get by.

[Danmill23]

Often this strive to understand is not reciprocated. The striver is left with an unfair share of the burden to achieve this understanding. But in doing so the striver can reap significant rewards, such as predictive power over other humans, insight into their thinking, identification, compassion and understanding of another navigator in life's chaotic journey.

And who know maybe the idiots have some good ideas?

[tattooskin72]

It's nice they did this study, but even w/o it, the answer is quite evident. The more extremist tend to believe they are right in all things, this is true even non religious areas... this can go for political ideologies or anything...

[dewonthegrass]

1:43, this is terrifying, that they will tell your child that the parents are wrong, and will try to convert him/her. This is poisoning the mind of the children.