Good for the boy!

If he is trying to escape organized religion at that age, he is smarter than we think.

I wish that I would have had his courage at 7 to dispense with anti-intellectualism.

It is all well and good that the child's joyride was ended before harming himself or others. But, I have a question....

Why was the child led to such desperate action in order to avoid going to church? Being Utah, I suspect the church to be Mormon. Could the sermons have been so terrifying to the child that he couldn't face another one?

I know that Mormons are brutal to gay-folk. From as early as 5-years, children often know that they are different. Could the child have feared for his life? People have done some horrible things to kids in the name of religion.

And, please do not mistake my intent. There is nothing wrong with religion (or Mormons), but too often Humans' interpretations of God's plan are misunderstood and become as weapons in the hands of the ignorant = unnecessary suffering for all.

Aliveinsd, I think you're going a little too far. Church is boring for kids and parents make them go. Plain and simple. It's not terrifying sermons...he probably doesn't pay attention anyway.

Not to mention Mormon church lasts 3 HOURS. What kid wants to spend 3 hours in church (assuming it was Mormon)? You know they'd rather be off somewhere playing in the dirt.

Come to think of it, what adult wants to spend 3 hours in church when they could be FISHING? :)

3 hours?! No wonder he stole the car. And how many countless others develop strange diseases on Sundays?

aliveinsd - I know that Mormons are brutal to gay-folk.

If disagreeing with the lifestyle but loving the person just the same is "brutal", then, whatever. I suppose it is "brutal" then to disagree with anything at all. We are "brutal" to serial killers too I guess.

Mike - 3 hours?! No wonder he stole the car.

Being a faithful Mormon, I can still remember what it was like being a kid in church for thee hours (it is broken up into different activities and locations in the building though - there are breaks). I must say that boredom (if it was a Mormon church) is an understandable motive for a 7-year-old.

Something makes me like this kid a lot.

I wouldn't blame the kid for not wanting go to to church it is boring anyway. He should not have taken the car keys, he should have taken his bike. I haven't gone to church in 3 years.

Okay. I am open to other opinions. But, I too went to long sermons...boring ones, too. Though never would I have run away from church. It was what people did on Sunday. Later on, I attended Sunday School, which was much better, and made more interesting with activities for younger folks.

This particular little boy was so distressed that he took the keys to his father's car, cast aside all common sense and then, led police on a chase. Now that is indeed going too far. There must be more to this story. It simply doesn't follow anything near normal. Brutal is often wrapped in a velvet hammer.

The last option open would be that the boy has some mental issues--another possibility that was not discussed in the news article.

Initially, upon reading the headlines I figured it was a Catholic mass he was trying to escape from, but when I saw it occurred in Utah I figured that the Mormon mass must be as bad as the Catholic.

Aliveinsd - ??????????what is your deal???????????? FYI kids at that age lack common sense for the most part anyway. And, guess what he is not the first 7-year old to do this, and probably not the last. I don't think there is much more to this story. What the kid needs is a good spanking on his little butt.

Finally, he may still be Catholic. "Mormon" and Utahn" are not synonymous.

Andrew, I was kidding. Relax.

If this is the solution this 7 year old came up with....I'd say there's more to this story than what's been revealed.  Seriously, WHAT 7 yr old comes up with the thought to steal the car and such?  I have a feeling this kids been a disturbed child for quite some time and this isn't his first "weird way of acting out" moment.....

Just my 2 cents worth.

Maybe something happened to him at the church.

So you believe all religion is against intellectualism and its followers ignorant? And people say Christians are intolerant and judging...

Spanking? Is that really how you would resolve this? Hitting? Do we really want to teach our children that hitting is okay? I'm betting that the kid is pretty darned scared already and daddy will deal out a suitable punishment, but hitting the kid is definitely the wrong thing to do. Children that age may know right from wrong, but they lack the ability to truly rationalize their actions. They act on impulse. That's why we have them under our care for so many years. You need to step back and think about what you're suggesting. I grew up getting whipped for just about everything I did wrong, but I kept doing things to get whipped for, even knowing that I was going to get a whipping if I got caught. See. It really works doesn't it? Unless you are advocating teaching by fear and terror. I agree that there are times when a swift slap on the rear with an open hand might be appropriate (getting a kid's attention for example) but we as adults need to be smarter than that really. Rules can be enforced even without corporal punishment. They just need to be enforced consistently.

Funny, when I got spanked for misbehaving (especially in public; embarrassment can be a great teacher), I promptly understood exactly what behavior was intolerable. I also understood exactly what the punishment would be. Consequently, I changed my behavior to what was acceptable. Maybe some kids just don't catch on all that quickly?

Mo-291261:

Yes, spanking done correctly will work provided the one being spanked is able to learn. Yes, sometimes, hitting IS okay and depending on the circumstances IS the right thing to do. Teaching by "fear and terror" are, in fact, only two tools in the old tool bag of child rearing. Parents usually know what their children need to "be educated." Spanking may not be necessary in this case: we'll let dad decide.

If a spanking didn't work for you I doubt other methods would either. But I could be wrong. Sometimes spankings are necessary. Spankings are not always the answer but sould be used when appropiate. The problem with today's society is the parents want to be the kids friend not a disciplinarian. Parents need to be both. How many times I have seen a parent give the kids something to pacify them rather than laying down the law.

When I got spanked, i vowed to grow up and turn in people that I see spanking a child, and now I do. I love to see the brutal parent being handcuffed and driven off to jail. Spanking is barbaric. You can raise a child without being his/her friend, and still not resort to violence.

No Party Affiliation:
Did you turn your folks in?

Mo, esbee said spanking, not hitting, a very big difference, maybe thats why you are so much against it, you got hit, instead of spanked, when you deserved it. As far as trying to escape the bordom of a church service, this kid had other things to do that to him were a lot more fun, myself, and im sure many others, would have done most anything as youngsters, to get out of going to church.

Mo, I have reason to believe your kids lack discipline.

No Party, do you also enjoy seeing crying kids with no parents? Your nosiness creates orphans.

Maybe not spanking, but this kid will need to make up for that joy ride. No TV/allowance or games or something like that. Something that will make him realize that if he didn't want to go to church, saying so without running off with the family car is sufficient. He could have gotten into an accident and hurt not only others but him as well.

Spanking? Is that really how you would resolve this? Hitting? Do we really want to teach our children that hitting is okay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YES - Teach them that there are real consequences to their actions. With some kids that means a spanking - not beating. Some kids respond to other punishments - some need a little more incentive.

Hitting is OK - when some bully tries to beat the hell out of you. Good parents teach their kids when to fight and when to run. I remember a kid whose ignorant religious idiot parents absolutely forbid him to protect himself - that old stupid "turn the other check thing". He got beat up on a daily basis - the last time I saw him his face was swollen and bruised horribly. His parents should have had the "hell" or "maybe it was religion" beat out of them.

And - your response shows how naive you are.

No Party Affiliation: If you get your jollies in playing lawman and find it entertaining to watch parents get handcuffed in front of their kids and hauled off to jail (while the kids go to CPS), then you are sick and in need major psychiatric help. Please get the help you so desperately need. What is WRONG with you? Do you enjoy causing further mental and emotional anguish to a child that does NOT understand why mommy or daddy are going to jail? How is what you are doing is ANY better for the child than the parent spanking him/her? Its NOT. It is equally as damaging and you get your jollies off of it? Sounds like you were beat and/or abused as a child and were the victim of abuse. Get the help you need and shame on your parents for beating you. A word of caution: One thing about turning someone in is that you better be careful about doing it. Remember, it is a right to know who your accusers are. You turn me in for disciplining my child, I WILL come knocking on your door. Unless it is absolute abuse (more than just a minor spanking on the rear) then I strongly urge you to mind your own business. Otherwise you just may find yourself in a position of suffering from the consequences of your ridiculous actions. Be careful.

You have to be smarter than the child that you are raising, and that father should know not to leave belongings like keys (and guns) out where small children may be tempted by them. Spanking and humiliation are not proper ways of disciplining a child, violence is not the answer to any thing. Try a little common sense.

To Sarcasticus, yes I called 911 on them once, and threatened to do so a number of other times. Guess what, I didn't get spanked again, and I grew up to be a normal, well-adjusted law-abiding citizen, who is given to reason and intelligence thus thinking before I act. I am also a pacifist, a Pagan with Buddhist over-tones, and a scholar. I don't drink, nor do drugs. So I'd say I turned out better than OK.

BTW, I also call the police if I suspect animal abuse too.

Spanking in this case would be totally appropriate. Physically harming this child would send the loud and clear message that his actions could have resulted in him killing himself or someone else. Spanking should be used AS A LAST RESORT when (1) the child absolutely refuses to listen to the parent, or (2) the child's actions could have resulted in bodily harm or death to himself or others.

well,no party affiliation will be one of the new block wardens for obama's brown shirts,he won't commit violence upon them,however he will turn them over to the proper authorties who will,your parents should have packed your bags and booted you out of the house

I sense that most people who are against giving a child a good swift spank on his or her butt when appropriate is not a parent. And, if you are not then it is better for you not to get into that discussion, because the truth is that you do not know what it is like to raise a child. You can read all you want about child rearing, and cry about your horid experience as a child, but bottom line is you REALLY do not know what it is to raise a child!

how about a good spanking!

So the only way you can think of to talk to kids about what they did was wrong is to hit them? If your kid spills their milk do you hit them for that?

Kid deserves an ass beating. The idea that a child cannot understand misbehaving = pain is bullocks (Unless the kid legitmately has some sort of insanity that disconnects him from reality.). Even a dumb animal can learn to equate this. A child of 7 should have no problem whatsoever.

Not teaching children that disrespect and rule (law) breaking have real and painful consequences is a big reason the world is going straight down the @!$%#ter.

Inflicting pain shouldnt be a parent's answer to everyone situation, but to something as flagrant as stealing a car? Man if I had did that at age 7, my daddy would have had to have bought a new belt the next day after he wore his old one out on my backside.

When I look around me and see all my neighbors, young bucks just coming into their 20s out screaming and cussing all hours of the night, getting the cops called on them, all actin a fool, makes me glad my parents werent afraid to smack my ass into line, or I might have turned out like that scum.

Hey Westernskies, good to see you here tonight. I totally agree with your post here. Also, I left you an additional comment from the other night regarding the hospital posting. I think it is on page 5.

To No Party Affiliation:
I am glad to read that you turned out "normal." Obviously, your parents required more verbal communication of "big picture" education in life. Your parents no longer "spanked" you. You showed THEM who was boss: didn't you. I wonder if you were "better behaved" as a result of just needing things explained to you without a spanking. I, personally, bet not. I do see you as injured, though, from whatever may have caused your "trauma". From your posts, you seem to communicate a certain "delight" when you indicate that you report others to the authorities for doing what may be in the best interest of THEIR child. What you refused to accept, whatever it was that may have been ineffectually communicated by your parents through physical redirection does not mean that it will not be effective for others who are more able to handle this tool of child rearing. Your struggle with the "control issues" you experienced as a child by being intrusive into the lives of others seems enduring. I hope your calls to child protective services are for those to whom it is clear (after you have been able to "rationally" think through the circumstances and determine you "must" know all the factors) that this means of redirection is being truly "mishandled" and you are not wrong in this decision. By the way, erring on the side of caution in circumstances such as this can ruin the lives of those you are "trying to help."

@ Sarcasticus - YAWN

Oh please! I got spanked, my parents were spanked, my parents' parents were spanked. And GUESS WHAT my kids will be spanked too.

Seriously, none of us (my family and I) were"harmed" by getting spanked. We learned very quickly what we should and shouldn't do. We were not traumatized, brutalized, ostracized or anything of the sort, end of story.

To No Party Affiliation: " @ Sarcasticus - YAWN" ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! Your response is hilarious and I mean that from the heart!!!!! So funny! You have earned a modicum of respect! It takes certain qualities be who you are!!! LOL!!! Do you read much? Try the DSM-IV: Oppositional Defiant Disorder. It will not be a perfect fit but you will definitely see some of aspects of yourself in those pages. Enjoy! Best Regards! Still laughing!!!

No Party... turned out better than OK? You turned out to be a self absorbed, wannabe-smart-guy idiot is more like it. I bet you like to wear berets and put on eyeliner...

Somebody needs to light that kid's world up like the 4th of July.

Do you assume that because you think Mormons are the only ones who actually go to church?

No, he assumes that because it happened in Utah where approximately 80% of the population is morman. LOL

I saw an article that said 41.6% were active Mormon. That's slightly lower than your claim.

Spyrus: Your article said "active Mormon". That doesn't matter to "The Church", (as it is called in Utah) because active or non-active, they're still counted as being in the religion.

Codachrome - Your article said "active Mormon". That doesn't matter to "The Church", (as it is called in Utah) because active or non-active, they're still counted as being in the religion.

But that's a bit irrelevant since the family clearly goes to church, and thus (IF Mormon, would be in the 41.6%). And inactive Mormons can easily attend other churches. Thus, there is still a little less than a 50-50 chance that the family was Mormon.

Have you ever been to Utah? There are very few "other churches". But maybe that's what the kid was looking for. :-)

Have you ever been to Utah? There are very few "other churches". But maybe that's what the kid was looking for. :-)

Yes, I've been there, and there are plenty of other churches. There are more Mormon churches, but the rest are all there in force as well.

Yep here we go again, Mormon bashing...<sigh>

Actually the Mormons I know are good people. And having a kid sit in church is far better than him/her playing video games or watching those crap reality shows.

Yep, we go to Utah quite frequently. There are churches there for pretty much every denomination. If you claim there aren't then you're just showing your ignorance. BTW, Las Vegas has more members of the LDS church per capita than Salt Lake City does....

Yes there are churches here in Utah for nearly every denomination, but there are LDS churches on every block, and they outnumber non-Mormon churches by dozens to one.

Vegas MAY have more LDS per capita than Salt Lake (I question the stat - especially since there are probably more tourists than residents in Vegas at any given moment - but will accept it for argument's sake.) But even if true, this story did not take place in Salt Lake, but Weber County. The rest of Utah is MUCH more LDS than the fairly liberal/cosmopolitain island of the capitol city.

If the state is only 41.6% active Mormon (again questionable), it DOES NOT mean that there is a "less than 50-50 chance" this family is LDS. That would assume that all or even most of the "inactive" Mormons are attending other churches. The vast majority of us "inactive" Mormons in Utah attend no church at all (and happily so) - though sure SOME may attend other churches. SOME "inactive" Catholics may attend Mormon churches for that matter, but most of them don't. Most of the "inactive" spend their Sundays pursuing other activities like I do. I resent the assumption that everybody attends some church so if only 41% are at the ward house on Sunday, then over 50% are worshipping somewhere else. It just ain't so. A very large percentage of the population of UT (and of other states for that matter) is not in any meeting house on any given Sunday

THIS family apparently attends church. Meaning that they are a part of the church-going population of Utah. It is possible that only 41.6% or the TOTAL Utah population is "active" Mormon, but I assure you that the percentage of CHURCH-GOERS that are Mormon is much higher. It would be statistically reasonable to assume these folks are LDS - though admittedly far from certain.

Spanking is NOT a tool for raising a child. It is a weapon for intimidating and abusing one. Period. Spanking IS hitting - just another name, and no, there is no difference. There are plenty of ways to teach and correct a child without inflicting physical pain. More effective ones too. Corporal punishment is rapidly and rightly becoming unacceptable in civilized society and I for one applaud Mo for not sitting idly and watching weaker defenseless people be physically victimized by stronger people just because those bullies happen to be their parents. NO ONE "deserves" to be subjected to pain, and it is never for ones "own good" to be hurt. Using physical force for any reason short of self defense against a bully who lacks the self control to communicate WITHOUT violence is uncivilized and unjustified.

Spanking is NOT a tool for raising a child. It is a weapon for intimidating and abusing one. Period. Spanking IS hitting - just another name, and no, there is no difference. There are plenty of ways to teach and correct a child without inflicting physical pain. More effective ones too. Corporal punishment is rapidly and rightly becoming unacceptable in civilized society and I for one applaud Mo for not sitting idly and watching weaker defenseless people be physically victimized by stronger people just because those bullies happen to be their parents. NO ONE "deserves" to be subjected to pain, and it is never for ones "own good" to be hurt. Using physical force for any reason short of self defense against a bully who lacks the self control to communicate WITHOUT violence is uncivilized and unjustified.

Nice thought, still I disagree with it.

@ meisnerman - Being that neither of us can provide sourced statistics, I'd call the argument a moot point. Nonetheless, there is no sense in trying to infer motive to the boy's actions when we have no idea why he did not want to go to church. There are a million reasons why he might not have wanted to go, and it need not have anything to do with his denomination. Nobody here knows why the boy didn't want to go, thus any argument related to whether or not the boy is Mormon or not is consequently pointless as well.

Personally, I remember wanting to skip church for all manner of reasons at that age, ranging from boredom to avoiding bullies. It is highly, highly unlikely at that age the boy was actively avoiding church due to rebellion against religion in general or particular.

I agree that the question of the boys religion is unrelated to the article and that his motives or even state of mind are completely unknown from the facts at hand. My point is completely unrelated to the boy or his motives, and therefore may be "moot" to the present discussion, except insofar as some here - including you- have voiced the assertion that the odds are "greater than 50%" that the church in question is not a Mormon one. I simply argue that this is a highly unlikely assertion, and based on false assumptions. I cannot provide sourced statistics, but the one statistic cited (41.some- odd percent) does not support the assertion. That's my point, moot or no.

So we both agree that the argument is absolutely pointless then. So let's move on to your other threads where I get to use evidence . . .

Evidence is fun (cue faux evil laugh)

meisnerman you said:

"NO ONE "deserves" to be subjected to pain, and it is never for ones "own good" to be hurt."

does that also include forcing a child to endure painful vaccinations at the doctor's office?

Way to use an everyday news story as a platform to spout your blind hate, bigotry, and ignorance.

My bad, that last one was meant for Codachrome.

Lonewolf, your post seems bitter and resentful, but at least you have the decency to not attach a single group.

lonewolf1029

You are so right. Religion is used to control through fairy tales and what better time to introduce religion then when someone is a child and wants to believe in fairy tales.

It's similar to the Tobacco companies targeting young children; get them while they are young and impressionable and before they have any real common sense.

Let's not get too carried away about inferring motive to a 7-year-old. For all we know the kid thought his church was too wishy-washy liberal and was pissed cuz he prefers a firebrand/damn-you-to-hell church that he attended in the past.

Or maybe he was just pissed because Mommy wouldn't let him bring his new Transformer toy. Bottom line, you people are projecting your own fantasies onto a boy you've never met and never will.

But Ryno, why do you have to use the power of government to oppose a life-style, instead of persuasion and long-suffering? Isn't it enough to know that you have God on your side?

Fairy tales! Well put Ryno!

But Ryno, why do you have to use the power of government to oppose a life-style, instead of persuasion and long-suffering? Isn't it enough to know that you have God on your side?

Oh geez, another person begging to bring up Prop 8 in a completely unrelated thread? Mormons believe in democracy - and we vote our conscience. It would be absurdly illogical to vote for something that you are morally opposed to. But that had nothing to do with me personally - I live in Texas.

Fairy tales! Well put Ryno!

Actually I said fantasies, not fairy tales. Still, I have no problem that you think my religion is a fairy tale. It doesn't hurt my feelings at all. What I find funny is people who dislike religion that think they can correctly deduce a child's motives based solely on their own disdain for religion. That's just plain nonsense!

Oops! I guess it was lonewolf who said fairy tales. And wait, you're not offended? I give you props. You're one of the very few mormons- sorry, lds people, who aren't ready to yell at me for saying something that doesn't mesh with your religion.

Oops! I guess it was lonewolf who said fairy tales. And wait, you're not offended? I give you props. You're one of the very few mormons- sorry, lds people, who aren't ready to yell at me for saying something that doesn't mesh with your religion.

I have traveled the world (ex-Navy) and sampled from as many religions as I could. I chose the LDS faith. But by definition the overwhelming majority of people who don't belong to my faith think it is a fairy tale. I can see no logical reason to get mad about that. Quid pro quo and all... Most mormons outside of Utah are like me in that regard. It's only when a group is a social majority that "odd" behaviors sometimes appear...

I do get irked when people opportunistically use a news article (that objectively has nothing to do with Mormonism) to take potshots at my religion.

Ryno, I live in Utah, and I can say that there are some here who would be very angry if anyone said anything at odds with the LDS religion. However, there are still some people who understand other people viewpoints.

Lonwolf ditto to that.

Oh, c'mon! It's a seven year old kid with NASCAR blood in his veins. It is probably just a garden variety Utah church. Who wants to attend something like that at seven years old? Most parents send their children to church for spiritual and biblically based moral upbringing. BUT, it is not of interest to the child at this time. The big surprise to me is that this little "peckerwood" took the car and was able to drive it. That is not something most seven year olds would even think of doing.

Yeah, that is what stood out to me too, that the kid not only got it out of the driveway, but drove it! Makes me wonder if someone hasn't been teaching him on the sly. I know when I was a kid living in a rural area that some of my boy cousins started driving at 8 and 9. No way in hell would I ever let my kids do that, though! In this story neither dad nor the cop seemed particularly concerned, so I really wonder...

It might make perfect sense to vote against a law in conformity with your personal religious beliefs if you also believed on a higher level that forcing people to obey was the wrong plan because it robbed people of some larger issue like freedom to chose the right instead of having it imposed upon you. Sounds familiar to me anyway.

Bob? What does your statement have to do with this discussion?

Right on! Good citizens start being made by good and responsible parents.

So you'd use a paddle or a belt? I'd take great pleasure in turning you into the Police for child abuse, and would cheer when Social Services took away your kids forever. You are one sick freak.

There is a substantial difference between a spanking and child abuse. If you can not differentiate between the two, you are the one with some severe issues.

MikeT1213:
Here, here! (Hear, hear?) I never know which one it is, but, kudos to you.

Then no party they go in the system to be physical and sexually abused , get a grip, do you know what goes on in foster care.

Thanks Sarcasticus, I've also enjoyed reading your comments. Great minds really do think alike!

Boy, your name, alljoy, couldn't be farther from the truth. If you were my parent not only would I steal your car to get away from you and your pathetic church but I would keep going and wouldn't look back.

Disciplining children through abuse, scare tactics, and intimidation is the worst way to parent. Nice way to predict the future of this child. You have no idea what his home life is like nor what type of church he is attending. If a lot of alter boys had done the same perhaps a few million less would have been sexually abused.

Old ideas will never die until the old are dead. I can't wait.

Children and teens are getting worse by the day, but not spanking is the best way to raise a child. Makes perfect sense. You never heard of a kid cursing out a teacher when I was in school and I graduated in 95 so I'm far from an old man. No wonder kids have zero respect for adults these days. Pansy parents.

Mike, reread both my post and Alljoy's, to which I was responding. He/she specifically stated using a paddle or a belt. That IS abuse.

And that's how we get people to have respect. We force them to obey rather than teach them, because it's easier and because morality is not something more etheral than can be reduced to an action.

Alljoy, you are absolutely right on! The parents need to do their best to get this kid under control or face serious consequences when he reaches his teen years. And, they need to do whatever it takes. I wish them luck.

Some post just are not worth responding to -- No Party Affiliation -- because it is obvious that he are clueless.

so you can really put the wood to him next time Mr Alljoy?

As others have said, there's less than a 50-50 chance that the kid was Mormon. Just as likely he was rebelling against going to his smelly grandmother's house for dinner afterward or who knows what.

You are right though that the important thing is that no one was hurt.

I also don't agree with using a belt. A paddle, maybe. I think too much spanking can be abuse though.

My dad always used a yard stick on me and my sisters. Usually one or two spanks. It sure made me listen. However, I also became submissive and intimidated by authority, though I'm not sure if that has anything to do with it. Only within the past few years have I learned its ok to question authority.

Opps, I meant to reply to the topic above this one.

Ryno,

I repeat, If the state is only 41.6% active Mormon (again questionable), it DOES NOT mean that there is a "less than 50-50 chance" this family is LDS. That would assume that all or even most of the "inactive" Mormons are attending other churches. The vast majority of us "inactive" Mormons in Utah attend no church at all (and happily so) - though sure SOME may attend other churches. SOME "inactive" Catholics may attend Mormon churches for that matter, but most of them don't. Most of the "inactive" spend their Sundays pursuing other activities like I do. I resent the assumption that everybody attends some church so if only 41% are at the ward house on Sunday, then over 50% are worshipping somewhere else. It just ain't so. A very large percentage of the population of UT (and of other states for that matter) is not in any meeting house on any given Sunday

THIS family apparently attends church. Meaning that they are a part of the church-going population of Utah. It is possible that only 41.6% or the TOTAL Utah population is "active" Mormon, but I assure you that the percentage of CHURCH-GOERS that are Mormon is much higher. It would be statistically reasonable to assume these folks are LDS - though admittedly far from certain.

meisnerman - Again I repeat the statement that this is a completely pointless argument. We don't know whether the kid was Mormon or not. Assuming that he is Mormon, it's still meaningless because we don't know why the boy acted as he did. The question of denomination was a stupid one from the get-go; one that was raised for the express purpose of attacking the Mormon faith as opposed to any genuine curiosity about the boy's intentions.

I completely agree that we don't know anything about the boy's religion or his motives. I only raise the argument because your repetition of the less than 50% assertion was in error and based on assumptions that fail to acknowledge the very large portion fo the population who do not choose to attend church. I raise the point only to point out that we are here and should not be ignored in such calculations. Otherwise your point about those here rushing to ascribe motive to this one brief account is fully valid (although a bit defensive I think, as most such comments read to me as tongue in cheek and seem to be using the boy as a springboard rather than to be seriously ascribing motive to him.)

although a bit defensive I think, as most such comments read to me as tongue in cheek and seem to be using the boy as a springboard rather than to be seriously ascribing motive to him.)

Yes, they're using the boy as a springboard to make fun of a religious group. How many times have you been physically beaten because of your religious beliefs? Try it a few times and see how tongue-in- cheek you think religious attacks are afterward.

If you are implying that you have had this experience, then I sincerely offer my sympathy. See some of my posting re: spanking to find what I feel about physical violence and those who resort to it. However You are wrong to equate criticism with attacking or with physical intimidation. We may disagree verbally without resorting to hostility.

You are wrong to equate criticism with attacking or with physical intimidation. We may disagree verbally without resorting to hostility.

The hostility started long before you showed up to the party. This seed is not about criticism. It is an excuse to cowardly denigrate other people's views. Look around. Read the posts. Do you see people trying to have an intellectual conversation here? I see a pack of hatemongers looking for a socially sanctioned excuse to spread their hate speech.

Your very participation in this conversation is an act of hostility. Had you invited me to have a pleasant and cordial conversation about religion at some other time and place, then we might very well wind up friends (even if we disagree). But the news article in question had nothing to do with the Mormon faith. Nothing at all. Nonetheless, the hatred of others forced the discussion there.

Don't expect me to stop in the middle of a war of words with a horde of vicious religious bigots and recognize that you're firing at me nicely. There is a time and a place for people like you and I to talk about religion in a civil and respectable fashion. Through no fault of my own, this place is not the right place. So right now you're just a lesser evil in my sights. It's nothing personal.

I had the brief impression from the way he acted that he WAS satan.

lmfao

The issue here is not what the kid did or didn't want to do. It's the fact that he drove a car he could scarcely control and endangered himself and others. You might sing a different tune if the boy would have run over your kid, your wife, your mom, your dog, yourself, etc. during his little escapade.

tjam:
Never limit your options when raising children. I have three successes of whom wife and I are proud. Spanking was one of the tools in the tool bag. Clearly communicating the big picture is vitally important but sometimes...well, you know.

We should look at all of the angles. Why did the kid do it? What if he didn't want to go to class because he didn't like his class mates? Or what if he just didn't want to go to the doctor to get a shot (all better than church, and I had to go to church for 10 years until my parents realized it was a stupid waste of time, and that was in Italy)? In any other situation you'd think it to be somewhat humorous. Yeah, it was dangerous, but nothing happened. Nobody got hurt. If more kids would try harder to rebel against mental slavery... now, that's a world I'd rather live in.

You guys are way over thinking this. He is a kid. Kids do stupid things for stupid reasons. You shouldn't try to rationalize irrational behavior. Didn't any of you ever do a stupid thing when you were a kid?

m0u5y you are already living in that world hence the problem with todays society. Guns gangs and drugs.

tjam -- you mean you allowed your kid to chose?

rhino,read some of these posts,some of these people have never outgrown stupid

I missed this post earlier. L-O-L!!!! Very funny!!!! Applause.

My parents did not "make" me go to church. I discovered God on my own. My children "were expected" to attend though often they chose other churches (with their friends) and they are all "born again" Christians. I wonder if there is a genetic factor? Sometimes, I hate Sundays too. :-)

And I discovered life. And now I control it.

Sarcasticus1

You sound like a tremedous jerkoff. I'd hate to live next to you and your child abusing ways.

Do me a favor, why don't you go home tonight and beat the shat out of your kids and prove yourself to be a 'man of GAWD.' What a loser you are.

"I wonder if there is a genetic factor?"

If there was a genetic factor I'd be as bat@!$%#e crazy over jesus as my mom is. I think its more of a southern thing. I was raised in NC. I got the hell out of the bible belt as soon as I left college though. Those people are nuts.

You sound like a tremedous jerkoff. I'd hate to live next to you and your child abusing ways.

Do me a favor, why don't you go home tonight and beat the shat out of your kids and prove yourself to be a 'man of GAWD.' What a loser you are.

Wow, the guys a jerk/loser/child beater for saying his kids could go to any church they wanted to, but they had to go to one?????

Overreact much???? Wow! I know where my vote would be for people acting like jerks on here, and it would have nothing to do with Sarcasticus 1.

tombones, I think Sarcasticus 1 does not seem like a "jerk off" to me. If anything, you seem like the jerk for criticizing his beliefs and insulting him. Get over yourself.

To Tombones:
I am not a tremendous jerkoff: I am an extremely ordinary jerkoff, no more or less than most others. Thankfully, you do not have to "hate" living near me so just flush that old hate down the commode and you will feel better. I can grant you the faovr of going home and "beat the shat" out of my kids because (1) they don't do anything that cannot be corrected with verbal communication, (2) have not needed a spanking since they were three or four, (3) and are able to hit me so hard it would kill my family of origin. I do not have to prove my manhood by spanking my kids, I am faithful to remain supportive when they make mistakes. I am respected and regarded by most as a "man of 'GAWD'" but not because I'm a pastor or anything, just faithful and helpful to those in need. Sorry for being a loser in your eyes.

Sarcasticus, here are my thoughts on the whole spanking issue and am interested in hearing your thoughts. While I understand and respect that some parents won't spank their children I for one have found the need to spank on occasion. I use only my hand and only 1 or 2 swats because I don't view spanking as a punishment but as the way to put the brakes on and get the childs attention. Only after I have the childs attention is punshment brought up. I have found that for my kids the best punshments have been groundings and recinding all privileges though I usually start by telling them in no uncertan terms what they did wrong and why they are being punished. I also keep it short so that they don't zone out.

To frostyone: it seems we are like-minded on this issue. i believe there are numerous ways to "gain the child's attention" but when time is of the essence and he is not responding to eye contact and verbal redirection, a couple of swats on the bottom with only enough force to get him to ready to talk about what he IS and IS NOT doing is beneficial. This stuff really is not that difficult but some folks just get child rearing all out of whack, especially when the parents are responding in anger. Never let one's anger dictate what you will do or say. Parents need to respond rather than react to circumstances, barring overly significant crisis circumstances when there is not time to respond. The bottom line for child rearing though is COMMUNICATION where the child is becoming aware of what is going on: authority issues, compliance, self control, etc., but most importantly LOVE. Your intervention methods for "punishment" and redirection are very familiar to me.
Regards.

Sarcasticus1, yeah it seems we agree pretty well. sometimes a swat on the butt will remind the kid to act right when in a public place when they are starting to get out of control. What I've found is that I keep the rules pretty simple and when my kids try and talk to me I try and actually listen instead of the knee-jerk no answer. It makes them understand that we're listening to what they have to say before passing judgement. There also needs to be respect in the home. I don't want to be friends with my kids I'm the dad but they are all taught to respect people, especially authority figures.

When spanking comes into play for some people it's usually out of anger and or fustration. There are times for it such as in this case because the kids actions are so beyond the pale but like I said it should be tempered and not used as the punishment but as the attention getter to help drive home the point. When I was growing up my dad was a very stern man. if you messed up there was always the belt to help put you back on track. One thing he did confused me for a long time though. He would send me to my room to wait for him. I figured out later that what he was doing was getting his temper under control so that while he was still angry over what I'd done he was in control of himself.

Cheers

I completely respect your personal choice.

But is there a legitimate reason for directing anger at others who chose to believe differently?

I don't know about "smart" but he's sure seems to have NASCAR potential.

Someone saw Talladaga Nights too many times.

Truth, I agree with you. He's my kind of kid. He is intelligent, energetic and has initiative and a mind of his own. He is going to go far. Of course he shouldn't be on the roads, but I would take him to a farm and put him on a tractor. Give him some work and praise him for doing it. Kids get tired of being dragged around and told what to do and preached at all the time. I don't blame him. Great kid!

A kid who probably can't reach the foot peddles and runs from cops is intelligent? Did I miss something?

Yup. You missed the point. . . that the kid had smarts enough to duck that weekly garbage called church and religious teachings. I wish I'd have thought of that as a kid. But by the time I was in my teens, I was fully aware how empty, how stupid the judeo-christian myths really are. I stopped going and have not regretted it a second.

I am happy for you, Seeking.

You admire the lengths he went to, to avoid church, but you are vehemently against spanking, someone should call the police on you for being a nosey busybody. I cant understand your thoughts on this subject, you wouldn't punish your child for this kind of action, what in the world would your kids have to do to warrant punishment.

I wouldn't subject my child to Church in the first place. I want my kids to grow up thinking for themselves, not be mind-washed by religion or the schools, so the point is moot, as my kids wouldn't take the car to avoid church. Besides, they are taught that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are false religions, and I show them the historical proof.

As for punishment, I can think of many ways to punish a child without ever resorting to violence. Can't you?

Oh, BTW, you are now on ignore, as I never said I wouldn't punish such a child in my above statement, and I hate people that put words into my mouth, which makes them lairs.

No Party Affiliation - I hate people that put words into my mouth

And yet you had no problem inferring without evidence that the boy did this to "avoid being brainwashed," as opposed to any of the thousands of other possible motives. Seems to me like you have a pretty big double standard running there.

good idea no party affiliation,put any body you disagree with on ignore,the story of your life i'm sure,put your hands over your ears and go lalalala! i can't hear you! ignore this!

Truth hurts I guess! Kinda childish aint it, and also I am a LIAR, not a LAIR. haha

I want my kids to grow up thinking for themselves, not be mind-washed by religion or the schools,

So you brainwash them with your own "pagan with Buddhist overtones" religion and deny them the chance to discover other religions?

Besides, they are taught that the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are false religions, and I show them the historical proof.

Oh. So I was right. You submerge them in your own doctrine and don't let them "think for themselves" by showing them "historical proof." So worshiping trees and burning incense is the true religion. Go right ahead on, flake, but in calling everyone else "false" or intolerant or "brainwashed," you only make yourself look more and more the fool: you're doing just what everyone else does, it's just that you're too closed-minded to see.

Oh, BTW, you are now on ignore,

And you prove my last point by fleeing the argument. Gotta have that last word like some petulant child rather than use logic or fact.

Why not go one step farther and remove yourself from Newsvine? Lots of scary opinions out there that don't agree with yours.

From the frying pan into the fire. I guess it is genetic.

Well said, Old Soul. Howard Gardner had a theory about multiple intelligences which breaks down the different ways that kids learn, and it sounds like this boy is definitely not one who can sit still and listen easily. I hope the parents find a way to channel his smarts in the right direction without resorting to violence.

Spanking is not what you "depend" on during upbringing, it's what may be necessary when the kiddo goes way above and beyond over the line of wrong behavior. By the time I was "too big to spank", I had outgrown any behaviors that would have needed spanking. I outgrew them by having them strongly discouraged by a smack on the a$$ when I was little. See how that works?

Yet another person smart enough to call religion "mindless folklore", but not quite bright enough to realize that he/she has no clue whatsoever what the boys's motive was for avoiding church.

Religion IS mindless folklore. If you had stayed away from church as a kid maybe you'd be smart enough to realize this also.

Religion IS mindless folklore.

I respect your right to believe that. But teaching in academia at a major research university and being surrounded by the brightest of the bright, I also know that it is hardly the province of the dim and uneducated. I know more than a few people with IQs above 160 who are quite certain of religion.

If you had stayed away from church as a kid maybe you'd be smart enough to realize this also.

You presume WAY too much. I was a total rebel as a child. I never got serious about religion until I was an adult.

Im not assuming anything.

You wrote earlier "Being a faithful Mormon, I can still remember what it was like being a kid in church for thee hours (it is broken up into different activities and locations in the building though - there are breaks).

You didn't sound like a rebel child to me. Now you say you didn't get serious until you were an adult.

And you do realize Einstein, Hawking, et al are atheists. I'm sure in your circle of friends you're considered quite intelligent, but please, dont' embarass yourself.

You wrote earlier "Being a faithful Mormon, I can still remember what it was like being a kid in church for thee hours (it is broken up into different activities and locations in the building though - there are breaks).

You didn't sound like a rebel child to me. Now you say you didn't get serious until you were an adult.

I did not identify myself as a rebel, but I did say that I remembered being bored. Thus, what little evidence you had of my childhood was that I had a less than enthusiastic view toward going to church. Still, whatever. The confusion is settled.

And you do realize Einstein, Hawking, et al are atheists. I'm sure in your circle of friends you're considered quite intelligent, but please, dont' embarass yourself.

Hawking is atheist. Einstein was more accurately an agnostic. We could lob names at each other all night - Isaac Newton (quite possibly the smartest man ever) vs Edward Witten (the actual top physicist alive today, not Hawking) Francis Collins vs. Richard Dawkins, etc. etc. The point is that there are brilliant people of both opinions. It is a woeful exaggeration to say that people of high intelligence tend to not believe in religion.

Oh, and since I'm in clinical psychology, and trained to administer IQ exams, I am forever excluded from being accurately tested for intelligence. I make no special claims for myself. My examples are all people who are clearly of a higher intellect than my own.

Agnostic and atheist are not excusive terms. I am both. In my interpretation of both terms, Einstein was as well in that he absolutely rejected any meaningful probability of a personal creator who intervenes in the universe. Just as I'm sure you would agree that you don't KNOW FOR A FACT that there is no Zeus (agnostic) but neither do you beleive Zeus exists or form your thinking based on the assumption that he does (atheist).

And while you are right that naming single famous people who agree with you is a meaningless argument to authority, the fact that - statistically speaking - the more educated a person is, the less likely he/she is to subscribe to a religion or to any supernatural belief, is a meaningful correlation. Richard Dawkins, while more vocal than most, shares BY FAR the majority opinion among elite academics as to the likelihood of a an interventionist god. Francis Collins is in a very small minority. There IS NOT a one-to-one relationship between the faithful and the faithless among those who have trained their minds, and if you are honest, you will admit this.

This may or may not be evidence in toward the question of gods existence. It could be explained by some other factor such as say a bias among academics against religious types or the suppression of religion at Universities (a characterization I reject, but acredible hypothesis nonetheless.) Certainly one CAN BE very educated and/or intelligent and still believe in god, but statistically speaking the two have a negative correlation. Do you deny it?

meisnerman - Let me just chop you off at the knees right here kiddo:

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/2.5512/please-forgive-me-professor-for-i-have-sinned-1.592384

As you will see, at the best universities in the U.S., only 36.6% of faculty claim to be either atheist or agnostic. Oooops. So your whole unsubstantiated post just went down the crapper. The majority (63.4%) of faculty members at the leading universities in this nation are believers in the supernatural. These people, by definition, represent the intellectual elite in our society.

You no longer have a leg to stand on buddy. You're just plain wrong.

Care to revise (completely abandon) your story in the face of the hard evidence????

Buehler? . . . Buehler? . . . Buehler? . . .

1-"Our country"? "This nation"? nation-centric much? I did not specify the US. America is much more religiously oriented than the rest of the industrialized world, which is bourne out an any number of indicies. There is subsequently a great deal more social and political pressure to assert belief or at least to keep mum re one's atheism, in the good old US of A. Don't forget that until a few months ago openly declared Evangelicism was firmly ensconces in the halls of power here.

2-The article you yourself cite shows the correlation I mention, as 23.4% of the academics overall claim disbelief while 36.6% of those at more advanced institutions do so. This shows the rise in disbelief the more educated the given sampling group. Even the 23.4% in the larger group represents a much larger representation of open unbelief than in the American public at large which the latest polling places at somewhere between 10% and 15%. A continue to maintain that this shows that the more education one gets, the less one believes.

3-A sample group including "college and university professors" includes all areas of study (including theology professors for heaven's sake! ;-P). I DO wish to revise my statement, in that I should have specified that certain disciplines of study show this correlation at a much higher rate. There are a lot of beleivers in english and art departments, precious few who have studied science and higher math, those areas of study which require disciplined application of logic and reason.

I did not specify the US. America is much more religiously oriented than the rest of the industrialized world, which is bourne out an any number of indicies. There is subsequently a great deal more social and political pressure to assert belief or at least to keep mum re one's atheism

Ahh, the obvious counter to hard evidence, "But the research was biased! They couldn't have been telling the truth!!! American professors are scared to admit their views! Those fools at Harvard obviously didn't account for this in their planning!"

Well bucko, the evidence is what the evidence is. Who should we trust, Harvard University, or your opinion? Being that the American higher education system is by far the most respected in the world, the research implies rather strongly that the top academic minds in the world are split 64/36 in favor of some form of God.

Even the 23.4% in the larger group represents a much larger representation of open unbelief than in the American public at large which the latest polling places at somewhere between 10% and 15%. A continue to maintain that this shows that the more education one gets, the less one believes.

Yes, you are correct that, within a restricted range there is a weak correlation between the two. But if graphed along the whole range of data, the relationship asymptotes. Thus, the correlation you speak of is true only within a set of restrictions that renders it meaningless when looking at the entire range. (If you don't understand range restrictions and asymptotic relationships then you have no business trying to debate correlations with me in the first place). The bottom line, for the non-statistical expert reader, is that higher education does predict more atheism/agnosticism to a point. But only to a point. The majority of the world's top academics still believe in God.

I DO wish to revise my statement, in that I should have specified that certain disciplines of study show this correlation at a much higher rate. There are a lot of beleivers in english and art departments, precious few who have studied science and higher math, those areas of study which require disciplined application of logic and reason.

Cite your source. I have a sweatshirt that I sometimes wear when I'm teaching statistics that states, "When all else fails, manipulate the data." It's funny to an academic. But this of course implies that you have data to begin with. Where is your data? I have provided my own (the original report is available here: http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf

Show me the data!! Until you have, your opinions carry the weight of a fart in a hurricane.

Sigh, you post one link, and suddenly you are the king of data. I have pointed out how your source does not contradict my initial point, and will gladly show you the study regarding the belief level of those in say the national academy of sciences, unfortunately I am late now for work, so I will try to find it when I get home. And no I did not claim the research was biased per se, only that there is social pressure to profess belief and that it is more prevelant in the US. I accept the rough figures but I don't believe the show what you claim they do. That's all.

Sigh, you post one link, and suddenly you are the king of data.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

. . . will gladly show you the study regarding the belief level of those in say the national academy of sciences, unfortunately I am late now for work, so I will try to find it when I get home.

Okay, so fart in a hurricane has the possibility of being upgraded to supported opinion. I accept the possibility. I'm waiting on the data.

I have pointed out how your source does not contradict my initial point . . .

You've pointed out nothing of the sort. Your original point was along the lines of:

Richard Dawkins, while more vocal than most, shares BY FAR the majority opinion among elite academics as to the likelihood of a an interventionist god. Francis Collins is in a very small minority. There IS NOT a one-to-one relationship between the faithful and the faithless among those who have trained their minds, and if you are honest, you will admit this.

Perhaps you don't understand statistics enough to know what a majority is. You see, when the other side is bigger than 50%, that means they are in the majority, not you. The majority of elite academics do believe in some form of God. Deal with it. To which you would obviously reply:

I DO wish to revise my statement, in that I should have specified that certain disciplines of study show this correlation at a much higher rate.

OK, fair enough, the data might bear this out. We shall see. Nonetheless, this was NOT your original point. Your original point was that among elite academics in general, atheism is the overwhelmingly dominant position. You are demonstrably and entirely wrong about that. Thus, your original point is completely invalid. If your second, revised point is supported by data, then you have something to talk about. However. . .

By the way, the study clearly showed that nearly 40% of academic BIOLOGISTS either believe in God firmly (~25%) or believe with some doubt (~15%). While this would support your claim that hard sciences would have fewer believers, 40% is nothing to sneeze at. And it would hardly make believing biologists a fringe minority. So your basic assertion is dead in the water right now.

And no I did not claim the research was biased per se, only that there is social pressure to profess belief and that it is more prevelant in the US.

This is sheer nonsense. Why would academics feel pressured to lie in an anonymous survey? Are you claiming the closet atheists were really scared that Jesus was watching over their shoulder? What possible reason would they have to fear when answering an anonymous survey? You're just being silly now.

I accept the rough figures but I don't believe the show what you claim they do. That's all.

There's very little interpretation that can be had. If you don't like data, then stop talking about elite academics and concede that you prefer to stick to unsupported opinion.

Regardless, your premise that elite academics overwhelmingly lean toward atheism is toast. If biologists are roughly 40% believers, then you're done right there. That IS nearly a one-to-one ratio, much unlike your scenario. Even if you merely look at the 25% who are dedicated believers, a one-in-four ratio is a very substantial minority. As I said, toast.

Game, set, match. Reality is, as I stated it originally, that there are plenty of academics on either side of the debate.

By the way, if you do come up with some data and decide to talk about a correlation, be sure to address whether or not there is a range restriction or curvilinear relationship in the data. Linear analysis cannot be considered valid unless these concerns are looked at. Good luck!

Excellent post. Very funny on the surface, the implications are tragic. Respect, oh, respect. How it seems to be diminishing with time. Regards.

They had the dash camera video from the cop's car on the news. I had to laugh! When the kid finally stopped his car he jumped out of the car and started running. He was a little guy and then this huge cop comes in to the picture. I really doubt that he will ever try that stunt again.

Amen! ;)

caledonventures -

Forcing one's religion on a child is serious child abuse.

The little boy must have had an inner sense that he did not want to be programmed to believe in sky gods, virgin births or talking snakes. Smart little boy.

The massive pile of psychological research showing the objective benefits to moral development and social skills due to religious worship would disagree with you entirely.

And again we have a person who for someone reason thinks that they know what this boys motives were.

Please enlighten us on where to find this alledged "pile of psychological research showing the objective benefits to moral development and social skills due to religious worship".

Please enlighten us on where to find this alledged "pile of psychological research showing the objective benefits to moral development and social skills due to religious worship".

I recommend starting with Dr. Sonja Lyubomirsky's book, The How of Happiness: A Scientific Approach to Getting the Life You Want. It would be a good starting point for the non-psychological expert.

If you have access to the research database PsycINFO, then you can get in there and read as much raw research as you're capable of understanding as a non-expert in the field. I would steer toward the Journal of Positive Psychology for relevant results.

If you need to read a "how to" book to get the life you want, then you are more gullible then I thought you were.

It’s probably a good thing you believe in skydaddy cuz you wouldn’t last 2 minutes thinking for yourself.

If you need to read a "how to" book to get the life you want, then you are more gullible then I thought you were.

It’s probably a good thing you believe in skydaddy cuz you wouldn’t last 2 minutes thinking for yourself.

I don't need the book at all. I read the original research instead of the stuff that is dolled up for public consumption. You, however, asked where to find scientific research on the value of religious worship. I have provided an answer to your query. If you are too belligerent to recognize that I have merely given you what you asked for, then that speaks volumes about your capacity for reasoned conversation.

As for thinking for myself - the fact that I teach at a large research university is objective evidence that people who are qualified to determine such things have already declared me not only capable of independent thought, but worthy of teaching others the same. Somehow I don't think the opinion of someone who's only academic credentials come as a keyboard warrior, is going to overly worry me.

you ask him for some reference he gives it to you and then you call him incapable of thinking for himself, man you get pissed when your bluff is called don't you rob?

caledonventures, you said:

Forcing one's religion on a child is serious child abuse.

according to SCOTUS you are 100% wrong. they have ruled that the parents have the right to raise their children up in any religious or non-religious environment that they wish. I'm sure that you can Google the link.

It’s probably a good thing you believe in skydaddy cuz you wouldn’t last 2 minutes thinking for yourself.

The bible doesn't promote or encourage free thinking.

Auteur 1536 - The bible doesn't promote or encourage free thinking.

Ahh, its the practicing Jew who says belief in God is stupid and didn't know that the orthodox elements of her own religion forbid homosexuality, until I told her.

If I were you Auteur, I'd spend some time figuring out my own religion instead of pretending you had the capacity to comment intelligently on someone else's religion.

Or would you just prefer to be so ignorant that you learn new things about Judaism from me instead?

Smart kid. He has amazing intuition.

Not so smart a poster... as intuition is the only thing you have to suggest you have the slightest idea why the kid was avoiding church.

Pretty smart kid. He must have known there is no god, so therefore no point to go to church.

Atheism is one of the more hilarious forms of stupidity. Agnosticism is entirely respectable, because agnostics are bright enough to know that there is no way to know there isn't a God. I can respect agnostics - even ones who believe there is almost certainly no God. But declaring it as a given is just not bright.

Ryno IDIOT

I have been an atheist since I was a child....NEVER bought into the Religion game. YOU are the stupid one for making this comment. While I may be an atheist, I have always honored friends who did believe and even, if they dined at my house, asked if they would like to say grace before dinner, as a courtsey. But I get nothing but dis-respect from STUPID people like you who make assertions that I am stupid because I don't believe in God. Who is God anyway. Have you seen him/her/it? Has it dined at your house? Have you gone out dancing with IT? Spare me your idiotic moralizations. Keep them to yourself. Obviously, you are not really happy, as I am, with the conclusions that I have come to in my life.

Oh no, he called me an idiot! Whatever will I do? Woe is me! Woe is me! :P

John, try reading my post next time instead of getting angry over what you wish I had said. Being agnostic and merely believing there is probably not a God is perfectly reasonable. It sounds like that's what you are. But declaring that God cannot exist (true atheism) is not intelligent at all, since it cannot be proven. It sounds like you're an indifferent agnostic too me, since you acknowledge respect of faith in others.

On the opposite side of the same coin, I myself believe in God, but I do not say that his existence is a given. That would be grossly unintelligent. I cannot prove it, thus I believe and nothing more.

And I am not moralizing. I am intellectualizing. Learn the difference. Also, calm down son! Breathe my child, breathe (yes that should sound mocking, as your post did give me a minor case of the giggles).

Ryno, if your claiming Athiesm is stupid based on our confidence, then would'nt mormonism and any other religion which claims god to be real with the same level of confidence we do to be just as stupid, which just makes you a hypocrite.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutally exclusive -- atheism deals what what a person believes.  As in, someone who doesn't believe there is a god is an atheist.  An agnostic can be an atheist or a theist, but believes that the existence of gods cannot be proven.  Most atheists are agnostic atheists, or weak atheists, which makes no positive claim, so labeling them all as stupid is rather ignorant.

Atheism is one of the more hilarious forms of stupidity.

Take out "Atheism" and put in "the belief in God."

Ryno, if your claiming Athiesm is stupid based on our confidence, then would'nt mormonism and any other religion which claims god to be real with the same level of confidence we do to be just as stupid, which just makes you a hypocrite.

There is a difference between confidence and declaring something "cannot be." I believe that God exists. I do not say "it cannot be any other way." Atheism dictates that "there IS no God!" This is not bright. Agnosticism says, "maybe yes, maybe no, but who cares?" This is sensible from a purely rational perspective.

I believe God exists, but I would never say that rationally he absolutely must. This is why my belief is not irrational and atheism is. What is illogical is going beyond confident and saying it MUST be this way. That is the way of atheism and religious fanaticism. I know and admit fully that my beliefs are no more objectively valid than non-belief. I know what cannot be proven. Atheists deny this boundary. I do not. That's why I am not a hypocrite.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, or weak atheists, which makes no positive claim, so labeling them all as stupid is rather ignorant.

If you want to introduce shades of gray and talk about "weak atheism", then atheism can make sense. "Strong atheism" does not make sense. But I will readily agree that atheism as a belief (weak atheism) instead of a supposedly rational imperative (strong atheism) is a perfectly sensible approach. The form of atheism practiced by Richard Dawkins, saying that science disproves God, is pure folly. The form of atheism you are advocating makes perfect sense.

Me - Atheism is one of the more hilarious forms of stupidity.

Auteur - Take out "Atheism" and put in "the belief in God."

That's really funny, being that Auteur is a self-proclaimed Jew!! Wow!

Go back to your underage wives.

Go back to your underage wives.

Forgive me for not bothering to take seriously the childish insults of a little girl who is a temple-going Jew, but didn't know Orthodox Jews don't allow homosexuality until I told her, and (in this thread) said that belief in God is stupid, again despite being a temple-going Jew. This girl's got serious issues of the "I have no clue what I'm talking about" variety.

Holy crap, you guys! Could it be that religion of any kind had nothing to do with this kid not wanting to go to church? Perhaps he simply (he is 7!) had no desire to sit still in church (or anywhere, for that matter) for 1 - 3 hours listening to someone drone on and on...about ANYTHING? Especially if it was a beautiful day outside (guessing about that)?

I don't remember much about being 7, including trying to figure out God/religion; I went to church because my parents made me! Simple as that! I went through the motions of 1st Communion, Confirmation, etc. because I had to; not because I believed or didn't believe....I was a little kid! When I was a teenager, I got dropped off at church on Sundays (my mom went Sat. nights & my dad didn't go at all), I'd pick up a bulletin, & head out to the mall w/my friends (just like my older siblings did). Again, not trying to figure out God or religion...really didn't care, I was a teenager...church was boring!

For my own personal reasons, I do not attend church except for weddings or funerals. Does that make me a horrible person in God's eyes (if you believe in God, or a Higher Power)? Maybe so, but that's between me and God, no? Why would I (or anyone) care what anyone else believes?

Sorry for the rant; all that being said, I sure as hell didn't know how to drive a car at 7!

Holy crap, you guys! Could it be that religion of any kind had nothing to do with this kid not wanting to go to church? Perhaps he simply (he is 7!) had no desire to sit still in church (or anywhere, for that matter) for 1 - 3 hours listening to someone drone on and on...about ANYTHING? Especially if it was a beautiful day outside (guessing about that)?

This is the most sensible approach to considering the boy's motives. Other people here would rather use assumption as justification for religious attacks.

heck for all we actually know the kid had already done something wrong and was trying to escape punishment. The only reason that religion came up at all is just like Rino said some people will use any chance they get to bash religion and believers in general.

Or, maybe it was time to put down the toys and get ready to go to boring church, a tantrum ensued and there goes the car.

Seems a lot simpler than the 7-year old delinquent you paint him out to be.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished...he should. But you make leaps and bounds about this kid's personality that have no basis.