Can your Child be too religious? Time article

[Cadian]

I understand that we are going to have to agree to disagree here about his interpretation of this article. Although, honestly, the fact that he claimed, well, I guess I should say implied, that this article is saying something that the article itself explicitly warns against seems like pretty obvious bias, or, at the very least, misunderstanding of the article in question.

I disagree again. I am not the only one to react to the article as I have (there are others in this thread). If it were of genuine concern for children ( or people with OCD in general ) it would have focused on the OCD and NOT the religion aspect. The religon aspect would have been used as an “example” and not made the focus.

Your last line, however, is completely uncalled for. I would appreciate it if you would rethink the assumptions underlying this and realize that they are not, in fact, founded by anything I have said on this thread. Please be more careful in the future about making assumptions about others simply because they disagree with your interpretation of a particular article.

Noted but, I disagree. It goes to the acceptance of “freedom of worship” vs. “freedom of religion argument”.

Why not just “consider the source,” and take what is useful and good from the article and ignore the rest? Even if someone reads it and gets a misconception, we Catholic apologists are here if they need us. No worries!

Indeed. I did consider the source and to that end I echo:

If a child does not worship the mirror, Time magazine thinks they’re in the wrong religion, and/or thinks they are too religious.

lol, I already said we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I absolutely understand that this article could be misconstrued to be anti religion, and no doubt many readers will take it that way, but I just don’t see it if you actually take the article at face value. Again, people will just have to agree to disagree, but just please be aware that this article is highlighting a very important and real problem, even if you don’t like the manner in which it does this.

The source is Time. TIME. Of course it’s anti-religious and very secular. Time jumped the shark a long time ago ( and the shark didn’t even have lasers ). :knight1:

 

[thewanderer]

The source is Time. TIME. Of course it’s anti-religious and very secular. Time jumped the shark a long time ago ( and the shark didn’t even have lasers ). :knight1:

Yup, cause I’m the one being biased here. Because its impossible for somebody who generally speaking disagrees with you to ever have anything worthwhile to say. Therefore you can write off what they have to say without paying attention to the actual content of what they are saying, after all, who cares about the actual words they said, we know who said it, therefore it must be false and wrong and denounced as heretical and anti-religious regardless of whatever the words themselves actually say.

 

[BobCatholic]

Yup, cause I’m the one being biased here. Because its impossible for somebody who generally speaking disagrees with you to ever have anything worthwhile to say.

Actually it is the other way around.

Time Magazines shares your ideology. Therefore it can never be wrong. If it were wrong, that means you could be wrong, and that is a scary thought! So you will defend it, and anyone who dares to disagree with your ideology never has anything worthwhile to say.

Any accusations of bias toward Time Magazine or any Left Stream Media outlet which shares your ideology…you whip out your metaphorical machete ready for battle. You’re not defending Time, you’re defending yourself and your ideology.

I’m sure if a media outlet wrote an opposing viewpoint to yours, you would be the first one in line to scream ‘bias’

Time (as well as the LSM) hates the Christian religion. They rarely have anything good to say about it. They normally paint Christians, Christianity, Catholicism and Catholics in a negative light. Especially in this article, where they compare Christian religious belief to mental illness. They HATE Christianity so much they think it is a mental illness!

I wonder if they will ever compare Islamic religious belief to mental illness? Nope. What about the religion of Atheism? Nope. There’s the clear bias. But you don’t see that. You don’t want to see that. That would require you to adjust your way of thinking, and that is scary.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually it is the other way around.

Time Magazines shares your ideology.

Wow! Talk about assumptions. Now since I am willing to take what this magazine says at face value I must clearly agree with the whole ideology of the paper? I try to take everything a person writes or says at face value. I don’t always succeed, but I try to do this whether or not they agree with my ideology. Why in the world would you assume that I agree with their ideology?

Therefore it can never be wrong. If it were wrong, that means you could be wrong, and that is a scary thought! So you will defend it, and anyone who dares to disagree with your ideology never has anything worthwhile to say.

Any accusations of bias toward Time Magazine or any Left Stream Media outlet which shares your ideology…you whip out your metaphorical machete ready for battle. You’re not defending Time, you’re defending yourself and your ideology.

Because the fact I am willing to read this article at face value means I must be a democrat, right? For your information I happen to be an independant with very strong Republican leanings. I am one of the first to get irritated at Left Stream Media’s constant misrepresentation of Conservatives and strongly religious people. But none of that matters, apparantly, because the fact that I am willing to take this article at face value means that I must be a flaming liberal.

I’m sure if a media outlet wrote an opposing viewpoint to yours, you would be the first one in line to scream ‘bias’

Time (as well as the LSM) hates the Christian religion. They rarely have anything good to say about it. They normally paint Christians, Christianity, Catholicism and Catholics in a negative light. Especially in this article, where they compare Christian religious belief to mental illness. They HATE the Christianity so much they think it is a mental illness!

I wonder if they will ever compare Islamic religious belief to mental illness? Nope. What about the religion of Atheism? Nope. There’s the clear bias. But you don’t see that. You don’t want to see that. That would require you to adjust your way of thinking, and that is scary.

I’m not going to begin going through the rest of this because there are just too many assumptions and it is too filled with bias. Of all the news stations, I tend to watch FOX more than anything else. I read LifeSiteNews articles and the WallStreetJournal. I am against the HHS mandate, abortion, contraception, women priests, homosexual marriage, the whole lot. But somehow I share the same ideology as the Left Stream Media simply because I am willing to take their article at face value.

I’m done here. You are clearly not interested in having an honest discussion.

 

[thewanderer]

Wow! Talk about assumptions. Now since I am willing to take what this magazine says at face value I must clearly agree with the whole ideology of the paper? I try to take everything a person writes or says at face value. I don’t always succeed, but I try to do this whether or not they agree with my ideology. Why in the world would you assume that I agree with their ideology?

Because the fact I am willing to read this article at face value means I must be a democrat, right? For your information I happen to be an independant with very strong Republican leanings. I am one of the first to get irritated at Left Stream Media’s constant misrepresentation of Conservatives and strongly religious people. But none of that matters, apparantly, because the fact that I am willing to take this article at face value means that I must be a flaming liberal.

I’m not going to begin going through the rest of this because there are just too many assumptions and it is too filled with bias. Of all the news stations, I tend to watch FOX more than anything else. I read LifeSiteNews articles and the WallStreetJournal. I am against the HHS mandate, abortion, contraception, women priests, homosexual marriage, women priests, the whole lot. But somehow I share the same ideology as the Left Stream Media simply because I am willing to take their article at face value.

I’m done here. You are clearly not interested in having an honest discussion.

 

[BobCatholic]

Now since I am willing to take what this magazine says at face value I must clearly agree with the whole ideology of the paper?

Did you even bother read the article with critical thinking? No. You admit you don’t. You accepted the article at face value.

Please show me where they used a Muslim as an example of mental illness. Or an Atheist as an example of mental illness.

They DID NOT and will not use either of those two religions as examples of mentall illness. They ONLY used Christianity as examples of mental illness.

Thus the bias. Something you refuse to see.

I know. I have a different opinion than you, so I must therefore be dishonest and you don’t want to even read my point. Fine. Think that way. No skin off my nose.

 

[3DOCTORS]

This thread is steering close to personal attacks - I would like to suggest people re-read this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132852

:tiphat:

 

[thewanderer]

This thread is steering close to personal attacks - I would like to suggest people re-read this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132852

:tiphat:

Thank you again for the reminder. It is something that all of us here on CAF could do with often.

I’m sorry if I have come across as being rude, I truly do not mean to be rude or uncharitable.

 

[BobCatholic]

Thank you again for the reminder. It is something that all of us here on CAF could do with often.

I’m sorry if I have come across as being rude, I truly do not mean to be rude or uncharitable.

Same with me. I apologize too. I was trying to attack the point (Time’s bias) and not intending to attack you.

 

[thewanderer]

Same with me. I apologize too. I was trying to attack the point (Time’s bias) and not intending to attack you.

Thank you for the apology. I have to say, however, that I disagree with you that the point of this discussion is the Time’s bias.I have not been trying to discuss the general bias of Time magazine. I have been trying to discuss the particular article at hand. If you are interested in having a discussion about the article at hand I am more than willing to participate as I believe you are misinterpreting it. I am aware that Time magazine has bias and I have never denied that fact, I just think that the fact that Time magazine has bias should not be the sole, or even the main, point to consider when examining any particular article that is within Time magazine.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Thank you for the apology. I have to say, however, that I disagree with you that the point of this discussion is the Time’s bias.I have not been trying to discuss the general bias of Time magazine. I have been trying to discuss the particular article at hand. If you are interested in having a discussion about the article at hand I am more than willing to participate as I believe you are misinterpreting it. I am aware that Time magazine has bias and I have never denied that fact, I just think that the fact that Time magazine has bias should not be the sole, or even the main, point to consider when examining any particular article that is within Time magazine.

Me too. Time Magazine as a whole could be discussed in a thread of its own. And I felt like I was putting myself out there telling some stuff about my scrupulosity experience to illustrate a point from a firsthand view - and to answer another poster’s question.

Though it was my choice to do so, and not an obligation, I felt it was worth the risk of embarrassment to help others understand scrupulosity better. Perhaps that too should be its own thread, but I thought it was relevant enough to what this thread was about. I was hoping that by understanding scrupulosity as a topic it would give the Time article and its author the benefit of the doubt, which I felt was reasonable enough in this particular instance.

I was disheartened by the escalation of disputing about Time Magazine. I began to wonder if it was worth it to have made the post I did. I am encouraged that the reminder has had the effect of getting a derailing thread back on track and helping people calm down so that perhaps a fruitful and educational discussion can now be had. God bless!

 

[Hospitaller_Kni]

What complete tripe, what do you expect of a secular organisation?
the idea of this is complete nonsense “Can your child be too religous” ???
pathetic

 

[3DOCTORS]

What complete tripe, what do you expect of a secular organisation?
the idea of this is complete nonsense “Can your child be too religous” ???
pathetic

If I may direct your attention to Post #46 above where a link will direct to forum rules of charity when posting, perhaps this thread could return to a civil and thoughtful discussion of the actual topic. It is a worthwhile topic, regardless of the source of the article. Other posters have given it some thought and reasoning and taken the time to say what they did and didn’t agree with about various points, rather than dismissing it wholesale. :twocents:

 

[anon1234567]

What complete tripe, what do you expect of a secular organisation?
the idea of this is complete nonsense “Can your child be too religous” ???
pathetic

In fairness, a lot of the time the author of the article often does not have a say in what the headline will be.

 

[anon1234567]

“The things she seemed to focus on when it came to the Bible was how the world would come to an end,” Lloyd Hardial said. “She was quite preoccupied with the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel. She was always fearful that the end of the world was imminent.”

Read more here: star-telegram.com/2013/04/18/4786992/british-man-recalls-how-is-sister.html#storylink=cpy

I was just reading about what happened in Waco twenty years ago and the above really reminded me of this article, so sad and tragic.

 

[Kathrin]

For all that, it has a point

How do adults suddenly become Scrupules - a word I learned here by the way.

But connected to obsessive compulsive dissorder in that they worry, heavily worry about their sins.

Where does it come from? It probably has been with them all their lives and just waiting to manifest itself onto sins rather than cleaning in non Catholics. If you not been a Catholic then probably would suffer from some form of OCD may be?

So if this can be identified in childhood then may be these children can be given a break from their obsessiveness of prayer and learn to recognise it so it dont become into obsessiveness over sin in adult Catholic life. Faith is meant to be free-ing of the soul and trusting in God. Not being tied down into some routine.

I would think that the children who do have OCD in religious ness, if it hadn’t been for the religion they may have developed it in other forms and by identifying it in children at a young age, through cognitive behavioural thereapy may mean that issues like overworrying about sin may never happen or at least learn to trust their priest a whole lot more so the worry is dealt with in proportion in confession ?

It may be propegander material but it does serve a reminder about how many adult suffer with worrying about sin and if this is caught in childhood then their adult time may be more at peace than current adults where it not been caught in childhood.

Very well said: faith is supposed to be freeing. And OCD is a disorder that manifests itself in many forms. I have suffered from different forms of OCD, including scruples. Maybe scrupulosity is not all that different even from another form I have personal experience with: Checking. Feeling overly responsible for things. Feeling I have to report minor stuff that thers oversee, because “something might happen to somebody and then it’s my fault”. Some OCD sufferers go back many times to check if they have turned off their stove. Or stop their car to check whether they have hit somebody, when they just drove over a little stone. This also has to do with morality.

 

[Lesliej64]

I believe, some forms mentally sick are unable to accept and practice religion in a right way, sometimes causing even more problems in their lives or scandals. Once they are healed of their mental problems, they are able to see everything in the true perspective and wholesome religion can be practiced.

True religion does not cause mental problems, but sexual immorality, perversion, drugs, alcohol, etc., do lead to many forms of diseases. I wonder why there is no importance given to monitoring or guidance given regarding things as such these.

Once faith is awakened and a man becomes spiritual, his religion become meaningful. He is able have a personal relationship with God and can receive healing in all the areas of his life. So think carefully before restricting a child from his religion, because true religion is an antidote to many evils.

 

[Lady_Love]

I personally see an underlying insidious movement in media that wants to undermine Christian values. If Christians can be discredited and labelled “mentally ill,” if they don’t meet society’s standard of "healthy, then the principals can be discredited, and every one can keep on living their lives committing whatever sin of preference they have with no one pricking their consciences.

There is a strong movement in this direction. Certainly, many people who suffer with mental illness are drawn to religion like a patient to a doctor but the Holy Spirit can heal a person’s mind quicker than any psychologist.

I think it is a logical article but I also think it plays into this movement of discrediting Christian morals and values. Plus, children are usually less damaged than us adults, often we should be looking to them to try to remember what innocence, wonder, and vulnerability really look like. Children have had less years of societal programming to screw them up.

I just get this suspicion that it is another attempt to discredit religion. Apparently, now parents have to protect their children from religion so they don’t get screwed up. Nonsense. They are probably clinging to it to escape from the madness and lies that our society tries to pass as truth.

 

[anon1234567]

I personally see an underlying insidious movement in media that wants to undermine Christian values. If Christians can be discredited and labelled “mentally ill,” if they don’t meet society’s standard of "healthy, then the principals can be discredited, and every one can keep on living their lives committing whatever sin of preference they have with no one pricking their consciences.

There is a strong movement in this direction. Certainly, many people who suffer with mental illness are drawn to religion like a patient to a doctor but the Holy Spirit can heal a person’s mind quicker than any psychologist.

I think it is a logical article but I also think it plays into this movement of discrediting Christian morals and values. Plus, children are usually less damaged than us adults, often we should be looking to them to try to remember what innocence, wonder, and vulnerability really look like. Children have had less years of societal programming to screw them up.

I just get this suspicion that it is another attempt to discredit religion. Apparently, now parents have to protect their children from religion so they don’t get screwed up. Nonsense. They are probably clinging to it to escape from the madness and lies that our society tries to pass as truth.

Don’t take this the wrong way but I think its best not to think that everyone is out to get us, which may be hard sometimes.