How would you respond if your adult child informed you that he/she is a right-wi

1. 84

   gmwilliamsposted 9 years ago

   How would you respond if your adult child informed you that he/she is a right-wing fundamentalist,
   
   even a fanatical, religionist?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 87

   Zelkiiroposted 9 years ago

   I'd blame the public school system for not giving them a proper education and maybe myself for not properly teaching them the difference between reality and fiction.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      So your response to whatever an adult thinks is it is the fault of everyone or anyone else and they could never be responsible themselves for disagreeing with you!That's profound,tells more about you than any one/any thing else.You are superior

      replyreport
3. 60

   theman6007posted 9 years ago

   I have seen people in my circle being raised with the best of values, however they went astray later in life,because of peer pressure

   replyreport
4. 71

   aguasilverposted 9 years ago

   Why should I respond in any particular way?
   
   I raised my children to think for themselves, I told them about God, and Yeshua and why I personally believed, but equally I told them about other religions, and why they believed what they did, and left them to work it out for themselves.
   
   If one informed me that they were a right-wing fundamentalist, I cannot see why I would need any adverse response. (or have failed to notice already)
   
   Your question suggests that being a right-wing fundamentalist is some sort of deviancy, when in fact it's a socio political position that people can take when they feel their values and morality is being eroded by liberal ideas and agendas and desire to retain their belief and identity.
   
   They may be wrong, but unless they attempt to force others to follow their beliefs, they are entitled to be whatever they like.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      But aqua,don't you know left wing superiority is sacred.It is sanctified,infallible,&utterly precious.No one in their right mind would allow their child to become a right-wing fundamentalist, God forbid! whoops, a lefty might say Obama forbid!

      replyreport
5. 78

   wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years ago

   Today I believe many would accuse the founders themselves as right wing fundamentalists, simply because of they believed that Christianity is the basis for our government, society and freedoms and also their belief in absolute truth. The left wing media loves to trot out and distort  examples of right wing excesses, when there are far better examples of the left. ie Al Sharpton, Bill Ayers, Micheal Moore, Sean Penn, OWS, George Soros, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan, The Democratic Underground ect...
   
   Of course there's the harsh, arrogant and fanatical fringe of fundamentalism that really erks me too. If they got involved in this group, I would take a harder look at myself and try harder to show them the love of God in my own life and when their open to it, show them in the scriptures that God isn't harsh and arrogant but loving and full of grace.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      WBA, can I call you dad? :-) Cause we see eye to eye... (or mom cause with the anonymity of the internet and one can't know for sure)

      replyreport
   2. 78

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Ohhh thats so sweet, Tsad! That would been definitely Dad, thanks! But I may be younger than you.

      replyreport
   3. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You may be, but because of the anonymity of the net who can know, really. I could be the teenage kid next door to you. You drive a silver car right?

      replyreport
   4. 60

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Excerpt from the 1796 Treaty with Tripoli: "As the gov. of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian religion..." This treaty was written under Washington and signed under Adams. The basis was humanism, not Chritianity

      replyreport
   5. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you RtheB for being true to your reputation of spreading lies a distortions about Christianity. You can read (and weep) the truth of the matter here. Be my guest: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte … ticle=4520

      replyreport
   6. 60

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Apologetics Press"...hmmm...I wonder if they are biased toward Christiaity or anything? Christians are good at ignoring facts. My example is not the only one. The USA was a product of the Enlightenment, not the rigid doctrines of Christianity.

      replyreport
   7. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Like the article explains,if you researched for yourself instead of believing atheist lies you'd realize the only biased one is you as you just demonstrated above  Yet instead you choose to demean Dr. Miller http://www.apologeticspress.org/dm.aspx

      replyreport
   8. 60

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      This "Dr. Miller" has no degrees relevant to the subject at hand. Bible and speech degrees do not qualify one to be a credible historian. Unlike you, I get my facts from more sources (and better) than just heavily biased religious ones.

      replyreport
   9. 56

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Western Civilization is a product of Christianity as a moral and philosophical tradition, to assert other wise is to lie."not founded on the Christian religion" is an assertion of the Gov't's secular nature,not a denial of Christianity's significance

      replyreport
   10. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes retief, to lie. RtheB so tell me what qualifies you to be a credible historian? Reading garbage written by atheists? I cite a source, where is yours?

       replyreport
   11. 87

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Let's take a look at the piece of writing itself, shall we?
       http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
       Oh, look. Article 11. There it is. IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

       replyreport
   12. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Retief, I'm not denying that Christianity had an influence on on the founding of the nation. But one cannot ignore the impact of the Age of Enlightenment of the 18th century. Individualism and liberty are not the strong points of Christianity.

       replyreport
   13. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah try to change the subject which is stated by RTB "The basis was humanism, not Chritianity." The link I gave which you obviously didn't read dispells the assertion the Treaty of Tripoli as a patent denial of the Christian character of America

       replyreport
   14. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Christianity was influential to point, yes, but the "Great Experiment" that is the USA would never have come into being if not for the humanist thinking of the Age of Reason. The new gov. changed the structure of authority.

       replyreport
   15. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Really RTB,are you qualified to make that statement?You are so full of it. You clearly stated  "the gov. of the United States of America is NOT IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian religion.The basis was humanism, not Chritianity"not Influential

       replyreport
   16. 60

       theman6007posted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If you would research the bio's of the founding father's you will find that most of them were Mason's, who were trying to build a society based on the myths of Atlantis. In the scriptures GOD is harsh.

       replyreport
   17. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       You obviously need a vocabulary lesson. The words "basis" and "influence" are very different. Yes, Christianity had some influence, but the American gov. was not BASED ON the Bible. Why don't you come up with a rebuttal instead of just whining.

       replyreport
   18. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       "NOT IN ANY SENSE" means not influenced.See this is what u always do,hit with falsehoods then shown wrong u always demean the messenger(prejudiced, not qualified, whatever)never cite proof,then u try to weasel out of what you said.Nothin newhere

       replyreport
   19. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       If you send me your address I'll send you a dictionary as a gift, since it's obvious you need to brush up on your word meanings. If the concepts in this conversation are too hard for you to articulate and differentiate, I'm sorry. 

       replyreport
   20. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Ah ha.Passive aggressive (catty) condescension!Just another play from your playbook?so becoming.You say you're not a liberal but you sure have the liberal playbook down pat.Hope it gives you satisfaction cause it's not foolin anyone else.

       replyreport
6. 65

   tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

   
   
   Why do some always have to paint people with an ambiguous broad brush? "right-wing fundamentalist, even a fanatical, religionist?"
   
   That can have so many different meanings to different people that it is impossible to answer. Of course I know what that means if it is coming from hard core liberals. The left, always the minority, want to paint anyone who is not far left as right-wing fanatics. Everything they say, everything they do in reference to anyone who disagrees with them or their policies is aimed at portraying their opposition as fanatical or demeaned in any way possible when an honest analysis proves they are the hypocrites, they are the intolerant ones, they are the racists as they assert their superiority over all and hold it to be sanctified, infallible, and utterly precious.
   
   Yeah, there are liberals who claim to be moderate. I liken them to the Muslims who claim Islam is a peaceful religion. They can offer lip service all day to their beliefs but it is their actions to the contrary that reveal it's just lip service.
   
   So you ask, how would you respond if your adult child informed you that he/she is a right-wing fundamentalist, even a fanatical, religionist?
   
   Before such a thing could have ever happened I would already have sat down with my adult child on multiple occasions and discussed world views, politics and religion. Again I would sit down with them and reason, explore what they may think they now are and why, and make sure they have satisfied themselves that they have considered all possibilities and come to a correct conclusion in their own mind and if they have or haven't, it would be clear to me, I'd make it clear to them and that I respect whatever decision they make. What other response can an adult make to another adult?
   
   Unless of course the parent is a flaming liberal who asserts their superiority over all and holds it to be sanctified, infallible, and utterly precious. Then I suppose he/she and the adult child is going to have a problem, so much for tolerance on the left..

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The left has to distort every issue to fool people. There only true advantage is that they're willing to lie, cheat and slander to stifle debate and promote thier views.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wba, the same could be said for the "Right." Lying, cheating, slander, and distortion are used extensively by both Left and Right because if they didn't, we'd all realize how worthless they are and throw out their sorry #$%es.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      wba108@yahoo.composted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If that's true who do you suggest we listen to?

      replyreport
   4. 87

      Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      More neutral sources, like the BBC.

      replyreport
   5. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      BBC neutral??? Zelkiiro, you are from a parallel world. WBA,isn't it obvious, RTB thinks you should listen to him, he has all the answers, everyone else in the world is worthless, including you, unless you see it his way.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Wba, I suggest that you greatly vary your news reading. Don't just read one source and take it as concrete fact. Try reading from mor independent sources rather than those affiliated with "Left" or "Right."

      replyreport
   7. 65

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That's not what you said,you claimed both Left&Right sources are worthless because they both lie, cheat, slander&distort, (which is a lie in itself)Now you want to walk back what you said 'cause in your mind "independent" sources agree with y

      replyreport
   8. 60

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      ???...I think you're confused. My point was that lying and distortion is common in the mainline Left and Right "news" sources. Both liberal and conservative mouthpieces twist the facts to suit their agendas. We just need to be aware of that.

      replyreport
7. 61

   LoisRyan13903posted 9 years ago

   I probably would not respond because I am not into politics and do not know what a right-wing fundamentalist is in the first place

   replyreport
8. 60

   Robert the Bruceposted 9 years ago

   I would raise my child to think for herself and to constantly question her beliefs and to develop objective, fact-backed reasons for the things she believes. This being the case, I don't know how it would be possible for her to become a "fanatical fundamentalist religionist." For the record I'm not a Left winger or a Right Winger. To be fanatically devoted to either position is foolish.
   
   People don't become "fanatical religionists" through reason and fact-based analysis. They are lured (or born) into it by a variety of factors including (but not limited to) familial and societal pressures, deception, ignorance of facts, and sometimes through mental/emotional coercion.
   
   That said, if my child became convinced of this path, I would respond by continuing to urge her to keep an open mind and check her facts while hoping that eventually her rational/reason-based upbringing would draw her back to reality.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, GM.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You are quite welcome indeed!

      replyreport
9. 59

   mio cidposted 9 years ago

   I would tell them that that will be perfectly fine once they become wealthy and have to  defend their economic interest  from the society that helped them become so.I would tell them that once they come become rich they can forget their past, their struggles and the struggles of those before them, have no social responsibility towards the working class and the poor, rest any though of help towards the weakest in our society on individual  disposition towards charity and  not on the government.But until that time for a working or a middle class person to support the right wing extremists would be like a chicken supporting Frank Perdue.

   replyreport
10. 75

    FitnezzJimposted 9 years ago

    Please provide examples of what you mean by right-wing fundamentalist, fanatical, religionist.  As is, the phrases are so open to interpretation that there can be no right answer.
    
    Having said that, no matter what their leaning was, and no matter whether I agreed with them or not, I might say "It is a free country, as long as you have the will to be responsible for yourself, be who you want to be."

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I'll give you an example that I can attest to by personal experience: Independent, Fundamental Baptists. Not only do they believe in and preach immoral and crazy concepts, but they also tend to be politically out of touch with reality.

       replyreport
    2. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Well, I think it is obvious just who is out  of touch with reality and so consumed with hatred he is blind to the truth and it ain't baptists.

       replyreport
    3. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Whatever you say, Tsad. 

       replyreport
    4. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Robert the Bruce, don't wait around too long for Tsad to give you a respectful and intelligent answer.  He just loves an argument and, no matter how hard you try to give a reasoned debate, be will usually try to bate you, not debate you.

       replyreport
    5. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Ah, the president of RTB's three person fan club. Another promoter of anti Christian bigotry and character assassination. You just hate an argument because you never win.

       replyreport
    6. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       That comment of yours actually made me smile, Tsad. Your choice of words the whiny way in which you write them reveal so much about you.   

       replyreport
    7. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I'm here only to please you, of course your highness we all exist for your selfish pleasure, be merciful to all these your lowly servants who only wish to please your every whim..

       replyreport
    8. 60

       Robert the Bruceposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Lol.

       replyreport
11. 0

    promisemposted 9 years ago

    I would respond carefully and try to encourage them to develop beliefs based on fact and logic and not on ideology.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       So you believe ideology isn't based on fact or logic? That's profound, profoundly wrong. Virtually all ideologies are based on fact and logic.
       Facts can be misinterpreted, logic can be faulty but ideologies do not arise void of fact or logic.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       jonnycomelatelyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       tsad, so sad, your logic is so faulty.  "Ideology" is based upon what is perceived as "ideal."  How often do you find the ideal in fact?

       replyreport
    3. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       johnnycomelately, lately? more like johnny missed the boat. Give me one example of an ideology that is not based on a fact or a logic.

       replyreport
    4. 87

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       One example of an ideology that's not based on facts or logic? Okay. White Supremacy.
       
       What do I win?

       replyreport
    5. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I asked Johnny, but do you allude only to the self-conscious racism of white supremacist hate groups or instead to a political, economic and cultural system in which whites overwhelmingly control power&material resources which is facts & logi

       replyreport
12. 78

    highprofileposted 9 years ago

    If we are to look at this objectively we would see that the attitude of a child is determined by the company they keep the most. I would look past the child and see where there influence is coming from.
    
    Is it from society? a great thing to blame if you want to not look in your own backyard.
    
    Is it education? Well again this only holds true if that is the subject they studied everyday.
    
    Is it the government? That sometimes can be a directing piece of indoctrination and hatred of some one, something or somewhere. Normally when people say the government they mean someone who said something in a context that is spun by...... Yes you guessed it the media. 
    
    They have a lot to answer for as they want to sensationalise getting a cat out of a tree, rather than educating their audience.  Many are unfortunately programming our children's thoughts and deeds by clever editing and manipulation of the truth.
    
    However I would ask them to tell you where they have come to this decision and explain what they think, by asking them the same question. Put them in your shoes that always opens the minds of people.
    
    Although there may be many factors behind this decision I would be mindful not to try and dissuade them from what they believe in but look at how they can use their beliefs to change the world and the lives of everyday people who just want to get on with there own lives in peace and harmony.
    
    They will either see sense or they will find out that nothing is even all sunshine and rainbows. The grass may look greener in another field, but its still grass...

    replyreport
    1. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       GOOD ANSWER!

       replyreport
13. 0

    MrDanielAbramposted 9 years ago

    I would sit them down and inform them of how they should not be a right wing fundamentalist.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       THANK YOU, SIR.

       replyreport
14. 55

    celafoeposted 9 years ago

    i WOULD SAY halleluleah,   they did turn out with the ability to use their brains.    Homeschool paid off they were not indoctrinated into being left wing idiots with no ability to use their brain

    replyreport
    1. 87

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, clearly the worldview adopted by people who use their brains is the worldview that involves bogeymen and a plane of torment that somehow tortures people without the sensory aid of their nervous systems...

       replyreport
    2. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       GOOD ONE, Zelkiiro!

       replyreport
    3. 65

       tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Good one? "bogeymen & a plane of torment that somehow tortures people without the sensory aid of their nervous systems" is meaningless babble in response to this comment or the question. Who said that,Zelkiiro? that explains it, Shame on you gm.

       replyreport
    4. 87

       Zelkiiroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I'm going to happily assume you're just being facetious, because no one is so dense.
       
       Bogeymen = Lucifer and his angels. Simple enough.
       Plane of Torment = Hell, obviously.

       replyreport
    5. 55

       celafoeposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Z - why would anyone listen to anything you have to say when you parrot the false church lie that lucifer is satan when the bible tells who he actually is.

       replyreport
15. 58

    Brendan Spaarposted 9 years ago

    I would be very surprised. I don't have any children yet but I was raised to be open minded. Hopefully, any children I might have will be that way too. Both sides (left & right) have some points of merit so being open to different viewpoints is important. As well, it's important to be confident enough to avoid being sucked into a group that is so one sided.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       I would be quite shocked to put it mildly. If I had children(more likely a child), I would raise them to have a universalist mindset. I would inculcate them to be open to many things.  I would be highly insulted if my children turned out like THAT!

       replyreport
    2. 58

       Brendan Spaarposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       gmwilliams,
       I agree with you. the universalist mindset is one that my grandfather embraced. Having an open mind & a closed mouth would benefit the world enormously.

       replyreport
16. 75

    capncrunchposted 9 years ago

    Generally, groups don't refer to themselves as fundamentalists.  But those not in favor of these groups use these terms to belittle.  Society uses these labels in order to cause people to shun these groups.  Blacks, whites, and other races are given false labels by those not in favor of them also.
    As a society we tend to group too many into one.  And where there is intolerance and hatred, social proof can dictate some really derogatory labeling.  What is so great about America is our ability to believe and belong to different clubs, organizations, and groups as we choose.  We don't have to believe what others believe.  But, we don't censure other beliefs and expressions. 
    Imagine if I told you my name is Richard but you say to me that I don't look like a Richard so instead you will just refer to me as Charlie...That doesn't make me Charlie but I bet you could convince others to call me Charlie too. 
    Now.  There are always exceptions but who is one to judge?  If you have ever been called something you know you are not, then you may understand that I would say to my adult child, don't be consumed with what others are calling you.  Be more concerned with your character, because your character shows the real you.  I happen to know my child's character.  Everything will be fine.

    replyreport