nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Religious Boyfriend

xLisaBx

I've been with a fella for just over a month now so it's nothing too serious yet. I really like him and hope this relationship works out, except there's a problem. He's pretty religious.
We're both 18 and I'm agnostic. He's been to Lourdes and has a few little catholic church merchandise things in his college bedroom. However he doesn't blab on about God or try to convert me.
My question is: do ye think this can work?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

rozeboosje

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It becomes a problem if the people in the relationship disagree on things.

If you don't mind me asking, how would your wife have been if you said that you didn't want your child raised as a Catholic?

Oh, I'm sure that that would have been a problem alright. But that's where it was handy that my position isn't dogmatic. There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with. My wife, however, is perfectly happy for her to question everything. EVERYTHING. Including the faith she is brought up in. Obviously she hopes that that doesn't lead to her abandoning said faith, but if it does, so be it.

Dades

There's nothing dogmatic about not wanting that insidious organisation having unfettered access to your child's mind, and you don't have to have a replacement dogma, either.

Just saying that such a stance could be a reaction, rather than an action.

rozeboosje

I shall allow that kneejerk statement to speak for itself.

Hotblack Desiato

Having been through it myself there is no damn way my kids would be put through catholic indoctrination. But my wife feels the same and she's a non-believer same as me.

Where there is a religious and a non-religious partner, almost invariably if there is a disagreement over something then the non-religious person will be the one expected to give in - if not by their partner, by the in-laws. E.g. religious wedding or not, baptism of children, funeral arrangements :eek:

Ireland is such a twisted society that NOT indoctrinating your children is seen as taking a choice away from them...

rozeboosje

It always amuses me to see people who pride themselves on being "free thinkers" regurgitate, sometimes verbatim, Dawkins and Hitchens sound bites. Is droll http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1208/were-non-conformists-irony-non-conformists-goth-demotivational-posters-1344202473.jpg

nozzferrahhtoo

rozeboosje wrote: »

Oh, I'm sure that that would have been a problem alright. But that's where it was handy that my position isn't dogmatic. There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with.

rozeboosje wrote: »

I shall allow that kneejerk statement to speak for itself.

Not sure it is knee jerk at all.

The user you were responding to was not talking about indoctrinating your child with "atheist dogma". They were asking about refusing to allow your child to be indoctrinated with catholic dogma. Entirely different thing. And there are very good reasons why some parents, even if you are not one of them, would want to prevent this from happening.

rozeboosje wrote: »

It always amuses me to see people who pride themselves on being "free thinkers" regurgitate, sometimes verbatim, Dawkins and Hitchens sound bites.

I have nothing against that per se. If someone says something I agree with, but their command of English is such that they say it better than I do, then I am happy to adopt their way of expressing it into my discourse. You are in danger here of going down this route I am afraid.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure it is knee jerk at all.

The user you were responding to was not talking about indoctrinating your child with "atheist dogma". They were asking about refusing to allow your child to be indoctrinated with catholic dogma. Entirely different thing. And there are very good reasons why some parents, even if you are not one of them, would want to prevent this from happening.

It IS kneejerk because from my statement that I was happy to help my wife bring up my child as a Catholic he saw fit to start going on about "indoctrination with Catholic Dogma". This does not at all follow from what I said, so the poster was jumping to conclusions. My wife may be a Catholic but she's not a blind follower of dogma.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are in danger here of going down this route I am afraid.

Agreed. But there definitely ARE "annoying atheists" out there. I'm sure I can be one at times myself. But I try not to be, and I won't hesitate to call a spade a spade when I see one.

nozzferrahhtoo

And yet if such a parent brings a child up in their faith they are instilling them with that dogma. "not a blind follower" might dilute that slightly but diluted apple juice is still apple juice.

rozeboosje

[facedesk] ...

rozeboosje

Look up "slippery slope fallacy". It may be an educational experience.

rozeboosje

Like I said in my original post about this, while my wife is bringing our daughter up as a Catholic, she also encourages her to question and to make up her own mind about things. That is the compromise SHE had to make in this relationship.

A dogma is, as you can google for yourself "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true" - a statement that cannot be questioned. Consequently, our daughter's upbringing can, by definition, not be "dogmatic".

No apple juice. At all. Which should have been obvious to anybody who had taken appropriate care to read what I originally posted. And therefore it is perfectly valid of me to refer to these responses as "kneejerking". That's exactly what they are.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yeah throw away lines like that usually only impress the person making them, and no one else. Much less doing so over two posts rather than one.

Again the point was that a user was talking about not wanting to have their child instilled with Catholic Dogma. Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma, which is not quite replying to the user at all.

Another user then chimed in that there is good reason for not wanting your child to be instilled with Catholic Dogma. And you simply dismissed this with a throw away response much like you did with my post just now.

And the grounds of your dismissal was simply that you do not think your wife is too heavily invested in that dogma. Which is irrelevant for two reasons. 1) It is a single case which does not address the GENERAL points anyone is making here and 2) Just because her investment in it is not that heavy relatively speaking, it does not remove the point being made, just dilutes it.

So the pointless and empty throw away posturing inherent in your "Go look up this fallacy" comment is as irrelevant to what I am saying as it is just crass. That you think it only "might" be educational.... and that you have applied it where it does not apply.... simply shows us which one of us would actually benefit from looking it up.

rozeboosje

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma

My original comment was:

"There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with."

Upon which the kneejerking commenced. I get a great sense of "if the shoe fits" here.

Peregrinus

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah throw away lines like that usually only impress the person making them, and no one else. Much less doing so over two posts rather than one.

Again the point was that a user was talking about not wanting to have their child instilled with Catholic Dogma. Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma, which is not quite replying to the user at all . . .

Nozz, that is the exact opposite of what rozeboosje said.

rozeboosje wrote: »

. . . There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with . . .

This was rozeboosje's first and only reference to "atheistic dogma"; to deny that it exists.

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Your response was that you do not want them to be instilled with Atheist Dogma, which is not quite replying to the user at all.

I understood what rozeboosje wrote the first time I read it. Perhaps you should read it again.

rozeboosje

Thank you for confirming that my communication skills are adequate [grin]

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nozz, that is the exact opposite of what rozeboosje said. This was rozeboosje's first and only reference to "atheistic dogma"; to deny that it exists.

Again: One person was talking about not wanting to instill catholic dogma in children. The other person responded about atheist dogma. My point was they were talking past each other.

rozeboosje wrote: »

"There is no "atheistic dogma" for me to indoctrinate my child with."

Upon which the kneejerking commenced. I get a great sense of "if the shoe fits" here.

Again that is my point. You not having an atheist dogma to indoctrinate with has little to do with people making the point that they do not want kids instilled with catholic dogma.

The user asked you how your wife would have responded if you had not wanted catholic dogma installed, at which point you went off on a tangent about "atheist dogma" which to my mind does not even exist.

The knee jerking was yours therefore, no one elses.

And the comment was not even a knee jerk one, but a true one. There is good reason to not want that dogma anywhere near your kids mind, irregardless of whether you have a replacement one of your own or not.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I understood what rozeboosje wrote the first time I read it. Perhaps you should read it again.

You are welcome to if you wish. However peoples failure to understand the issue I am taking with it does not equate to my failure to understand the original post.

rozeboosje

[smiles indulgently]

born2bwild

A religious partner would not really suit me. Particularly when it is as overt as going to Lourdes or going to mass. I would have little in common with a person like that

rozeboosje

born2bwild wrote: »

A religious partner would not really suit me. Particularly when it is as overt as going to Lourdes or going to mass. I would have little in common with a person like that

To me it's a bit like meeting someone who speaks a different language. Ok, the analogy isn't perfect, but it works to some extent, so bear with me...

In such a relationship you could put strain on either partner, demanding that they speak the other partner's language all the time. I think that would be unhealthy.

Or each partner could learn to understand the other partner's language, and you may find out that even though you're speaking different languages you are, by and large, saying the same things. Then it can work. That's, roughly, how it works out in my relationship with my religious wife.

Czarcasm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are welcome to if you wish. However peoples failure to understand the issue I am taking with it does not equate to my failure to understand the original post.

The OP in the original post is only going out with her boyfriend a month and you guys are already talking about children? If that's not knee-jerk...

I think an awful lot of times in these types of threads, people tend to forget about the OP and use the thread as a vehicle to ram in the whole "won't someone think of the children!" nonsense, as if children have no minds of their own.

The fact is, they do, and most posters here are evidence of that fact, yet those same posters fail to give children enough credit for the ability to make up their own minds. They talk about children as being individuals, yet they fail to treat them as such themselves.

rozeboosje wrote: »

To me it's a bit like meeting someone who speaks a different language. Ok, the analogy isn't perfect, but it works to some extent, so bear with me...

In such a relationship you could put strain on either partner, demanding that they speak the other partner's language all the time. I think that would be unhealthy.

Or each partner could learn to understand the other partner's language, and you may find out that even though you're speaking different languages you are, by and large, saying the same things. Then it can work. That's, roughly, how it works out in my relationship with my religious wife.

That's probably the best analogy I've read on here to explain the relationship between my atheist wife and I. We have some things we won't compromise on and maintain our individuality, and then we compromise in other areas and that strengthens our relationship. We work together and we understand each other better, rather than behaving like stubborn children who refuse to see anyone else's point of view but their own.

rozeboosje

Czarcasm wrote: »

The fact is, they do, and most posters here are evidence of that fact, yet those same posters fail to give children enough credit for the ability to make up their own minds. They talk about children as being individuals, yet they fail to treat them as such themselves.

hear, hear

nozzferrahhtoo

I will skip another throw away post with no content or reply to my post. Perhaps "smiles inanely" would have been more accurate in it however for all the use that post contains.

rozeboosje wrote: »

Or each partner could learn to understand the other partner's language, and you may find out that even though you're speaking different languages you are, by and large, saying the same things.

As you suggested the analogy is far from perfect. Because with a language difference you ARE often saying the same things. If not most of the time. A language barrier is JUST that, a language barrier.

A difference of opinion on religion V No religion however has implications for not just communication, but how you live your life, raise your children and much more. It is more than a communication barrier. It is potentially a massive way of life barrier. With language you are saying the same things but lacking understanding, with religion you are not just needing to learn the others language, but you are saying different things too.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The OP in the original post is only going out with her boyfriend a month and you guys are already talking about children? If that's not knee-jerk...

Hardly. There is nothing wrong with extrapolating the beginnings of a relationship in the light of where relationships usually tend to go. The OP is asking can such a relationship "work" and for most a relationship that "works" is indeed long term, and more often than not involves procreation.

As I noted in my first post on the thread however we know nothing about the OP or her partner except that one is religious and the other is not. It is for the OP and OP alone to write down what she wants from a relationship.... for him to do the same.... and for them to work out together where the conflicts lie and where resolutions/compromises are possible or not.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think an awful lot of times in these types of threads, people tend to forget about the OP and use the thread as a vehicle to ram in the whole "won't someone think of the children!" nonsense, as if children have no minds of their own.

NOW you are being "knee jerk".

Czarcasm wrote: »

The fact is, they do, and most posters here are evidence of that fact, yet those same posters fail to give children enough credit for the ability to make up their own minds.

To a point I agree. But it is also true that people have difficulty in letting go of things that were instilled in them from early childhood. I have seen people, for example, come to near violence at simply being told that vitamin C has little effect on recovering from the common cold. And when you unpack their rage with them you find the SOLE basis they had for believing it in the first place, was their mammy told them it while giving them oranges when they were young.

So yes I see children as individuals with the POTENTIAL capability of making up their own minds, but I recognize that that potential has several hurdles to over come too related to the human condition.

It is analogous to mind mind to saying "Individuals have the capability of recovering from disease, so why bother making any moves to inoculate them against the more pernicious types?"

I see no conflict with viewing children as individuals.... and with inoculating them against bad and harmful ideas early on by avoiding exposure to damaging dogmas.... or by instilling them with an early knowledge of the fallacies and how to identify and avoid them.... and so forth.

"Individual" does not mean "Island" and "individuality" does not require "reinventing the wheel".

Czarcasm wrote: »

we understand each other better, rather than behaving like stubborn children who refuse to see anyone else's point of view but their own.

As I said to the user above, it is not just about "seeing", "understanding" and "acknowledging" the opinions of others..... like it would be with learning the language of the other.... but it is about the implications those beliefs have too. It is not often I have seen a language barrier have actual implications on what each person wants from their relationship.

Brown Bomber

rozeboosje wrote: »

To me it's a bit like meeting someone who speaks a different language. Ok, the analogy isn't perfect, but it works to some extent, so bear with me...

In such a relationship you could put strain on either partner, demanding that they speak the other partner's language all the time. I think that would be unhealthy.

Or each partner could learn to understand the other partner's language, and you may find out that even though you're speaking different languages you are, by and large, saying the same things. Then it can work. That's, roughly, how it works out in my relationship with my religious wife.

This is the most refreshing post I have ever read on this forum. The world would be a better place if more people thought like you and your partner.

Brown Bomber

xLisaBx wrote: »

I've been with a fella for just over a month now so it's nothing too serious yet. I really like him and hope this relationship works out, except there's a problem. He's pretty religious.
We're both 18 and I'm agnostic. He's been to Lourdes and has a few little catholic church merchandise things in his college bedroom. However he doesn't blab on about God or try to convert me.
My question is: do ye think this can work?

No. Not until you develop a greater level of tolerance of people who are different to you. I'll give you an example: My wife has been sick lately, yesterday I signed for and opened a parcel that had come from Norway. It was literally a washed out jam jar with water in it from some kind of faith healer/spiritual guru type that was supposed to help heal her. 99.99% of me wanted to break out laughing when I found out what it was, but I didn't, because I respect her and her freedom to believe whatever she wants without me judging her or being so arrogant that only I can be right.

nozzferrahhtoo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Not until you develop a greater level of tolerance of people who are different to you.

I am struggling to find a post where she expressed any LACK of intolerance to people different from her? Where are you pulling this from? I see someone who has merely recognized there IS a difference and is simply seeking the experiences of other people who have entered a relationship with the same experience.

Is looking for people who share experiences similar to your own "intolerance" now?

Brown Bomber

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am struggling to find a post where she expressed any LACK of intolerance to people different from her? Where are you pulling this from? I see someone who has merely recognized there IS a difference and is simply seeking the experiences of other people who have entered a relationship with the same experience.

Is looking for people who share experiences similar to your own "intolerance" now?

I'll replace like-for-like in the OP and then hopefully it will become clear to you.

Religious Jewish Boyfriend

I've been with a fella for just over a month now so it's nothing too serious yet. I really like him and hope this relationship works out, except there's a problem. He's pretty religious Jewish.
We're both 18 and I'm agnostic. He's been to Lourdes The Temple Mount and has a few little catholic church Jewish merchandise things in his college bedroom. However he doesn't blab on about God or try to convert me.
My question is: do ye think this can work?

nozzferrahhtoo

Playing the Jewish card in no way lends credence or sense to your point. Nor would changing the posts words into any specific religion.

Again I do not see the intolerance you are imagining here and attributing to the OP. The OP merely recognizes a difference between her and her partner, and is seeking similar experiences of relationships that share this difference in order to draw from that experience.

Nothing intolerant there.

In fact if I were to fall for a person of the Jewish faith I would certainly recognize the differences between me and this person and I would very much love to have people tell me of their experiences in a similar relationship.

But again I really do not see what you think bringing Judaism into this adds to anything?

davidfitz22

xLisaBx wrote: »

I've been with a fella for just over a month now so it's nothing too serious yet. I really like him and hope this relationship works out, except there's a problem. He's pretty religious.
We're both 18 and I'm agnostic. He's been to Lourdes and has a few little catholic church merchandise things in his college bedroom. However he doesn't blab on about God or try to convert me.
My question is: do ye think this can work?

Get the F**k over it. He is entitled to believe what he wants and it shouldn't effect you. my girlfriend is very religious and has the same in her house. As an atheist it doesn't effect me in the slightest. you clearly said he doesn't blab about it so why are you here moaning? do you see him questioning your relationships over silly beliefs?