ILs pushing their religion on our family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion is indoctrination full stop.

Religion is the largest population where sex abuse of children occurs.

OP tell you inlaws to take a hike.

Lots of things are “indoctrination.”

“Religion is the largest population where sex abuse of children occurs.” Nonsense. Family relationships, particularly parents, are the most frequent locus of abuse.

Followed by teachers.

Predators go where the children are. Period.

[Anonymous]

When they warn about eternal damnation or whatever it is they believe, I would just respond that’s just their opinion, I have my own opinions, life goes on. They give you religious stuff, just kindly accept it and donate it or toss it in the trash (in private). No need to cut people off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay away from religious freaks. They cannot think for themselves.

Or maybe they have and just reached a different conclusion from you and want to offer you the chance to live in that joy.

But you know….potayyyto/potahhhto

No. Stop. If someone is not interested in your religion you need to back off.

I seriously hope OPs DH cuts off the religious freak parents. This thread has shown so few can actually be rational (and thank you to those who were!).

Your stance on this summarizes the problem with our country right now. Liberals used to be the ones advocating for people’s right to speak their opinion at the top of their lungs no matter what it us! In fact, Aaron Sorkin, when writing the famous pivotal speech for the fictitious Democrat President Andrew Shephard in the movie An American President, was hammering home an ACLU talking point emohasizjng: “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
But I no longer recognize the liberal left of that era. At present, neither the ACLU nor any other group that used to identify themselves as “liberal Democrats” appear to be able to tolerate anyone expressing viewpoints that are not in complete alignment with their own.
It’s quite the shift.

+1 looks like PP thinks rational can only apply to folks who share her opinions.
Everyone else? = clearly irrational

-1 looks like PP thinks respect for personal beliefs and boundaries can only apply to religious evangelizers.
Everyone else's deeply held beliefs? = clearly need to be evangelized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When they warn about eternal damnation or whatever it is they believe, I would just respond that’s just their opinion, I have my own opinions, life goes on. They give you religious stuff, just kindly accept it and donate it or toss it in the trash (in private). No need to cut people off.

This. This. This.


Sheesh people. You guy get triggered by someone telling you that you will rot in hell.

When my MIL told me and my kids that, I said “Great, it’ll be an interesting and painful afterlife but I’m sure I’ll find some company.”

Then DH, me and kids laughed and moved on (our answer to a million crazy things people say).

But we don’t cut them off for something so stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they warn about eternal damnation or whatever it is they believe, I would just respond that’s just their opinion, I have my own opinions, life goes on. They give you religious stuff, just kindly accept it and donate it or toss it in the trash (in private). No need to cut people off.

This. This. This.


Sheesh people. You guy get triggered by someone telling you that you will rot in hell.

When my MIL told me and my kids that, I said “Great, it’ll be an interesting and painful afterlife but I’m sure I’ll find some company.”

Then DH, me and kids laughed and moved on (our answer to a million crazy things people say).

But we don’t cut them off for something so stupid.

Your MIL doesn't sound as dedicated as other evangelists on this thread (fortunately for you).

Does your MIL continue to push unwanted beliefs on you (texts/emails/books/videos/pulling DH or you aside)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they warn about eternal damnation or whatever it is they believe, I would just respond that’s just their opinion, I have my own opinions, life goes on. They give you religious stuff, just kindly accept it and donate it or toss it in the trash (in private). No need to cut people off.

This. This. This.


Sheesh people. You guy get triggered by someone telling you that you will rot in hell.

When my MIL told me and my kids that, I said “Great, it’ll be an interesting and painful afterlife but I’m sure I’ll find some company.”

Then DH, me and kids laughed and moved on (our answer to a million crazy things people say).

But we don’t cut them off for something so stupid.

DP. How did you get to the age you are and not recognize that not everyone reacts the same way as you and your kids? You and your kids might be able to shake it off easily but my kids don't. The internalize it and start doubting themselves and our choices. It's a problem when choices are made from fear (burning in hell) rather than preference. My kids struggle with that enough. If my mother or ILs continued to push ideas that contributed to my kids' anxiety or contrary to my values, I would absolutely cut them off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay away from religious freaks. They cannot think for themselves.

Or maybe they have and just reached a different conclusion from you and want to offer you the chance to live in that joy.

But you know….potayyyto/potahhhto

No. Stop. If someone is not interested in your religion you need to back off.

I seriously hope OPs DH cuts off the religious freak parents. This thread has shown so few can actually be rational (and thank you to those who were!).

Your stance on this summarizes the problem with our country right now. Liberals used to be the ones advocating for people’s right to speak their opinion at the top of their lungs no matter what it us! In fact, Aaron Sorkin, when writing the famous pivotal speech for the fictitious Democrat President Andrew Shephard in the movie An American President, was hammering home an ACLU talking point emohasizjng: “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
But I no longer recognize the liberal left of that era. At present, neither the ACLU nor any other group that used to identify themselves as “liberal Democrats” appear to be able to tolerate anyone expressing viewpoints that are not in complete alignment with their own.
It’s quite the shift.

+1 looks like PP thinks rational can only apply to folks who share her opinions.
Everyone else? = clearly irrational

It's 100% irrational if my ILs wont stop telling my kid s/he's going to hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay away from religious freaks. They cannot think for themselves.

Or maybe they have and just reached a different conclusion from you and want to offer you the chance to live in that joy.

But you know….potayyyto/potahhhto

No. Stop. If someone is not interested in your religion you need to back off.

I seriously hope OPs DH cuts off the religious freak parents. This thread has shown so few can actually be rational (and thank you to those who were!).

Your stance on this summarizes the problem with our country right now. Liberals used to be the ones advocating for people’s right to speak their opinion at the top of their lungs no matter what it us! In fact, Aaron Sorkin, when writing the famous pivotal speech for the fictitious Democrat President Andrew Shephard in the movie An American President, was hammering home an ACLU talking point emohasizjng: “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
But I no longer recognize the liberal left of that era. At present, neither the ACLU nor any other group that used to identify themselves as “liberal Democrats” appear to be able to tolerate anyone expressing viewpoints that are not in complete alignment with their own.
It’s quite the shift.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of free speech. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience of me or my kids. You are not free from consequence of that speech (in this case, being cut off).

I am all for people speaking their opinion. I don't care if someone burns a flag. Doesn't mean I have to listen to trumpers spewing garbage against the govt, or JK Rowling hating on trans kids or religious freaks trying to indocrinate my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they warn about eternal damnation or whatever it is they believe, I would just respond that’s just their opinion, I have my own opinions, life goes on. They give you religious stuff, just kindly accept it and donate it or toss it in the trash (in private). No need to cut people off.

This. This. This.


Sheesh people. You guy get triggered by someone telling you that you will rot in hell.

When my MIL told me and my kids that, I said “Great, it’ll be an interesting and painful afterlife but I’m sure I’ll find some company.”

Then DH, me and kids laughed and moved on (our answer to a million crazy things people say).

But we don’t cut them off for something so stupid.

DP. How did you get to the age you are and not recognize that not everyone reacts the same way as you and your kids? You and your kids might be able to shake it off easily but my kids don't. The internalize it and start doubting themselves and our choices. It's a problem when choices are made from fear (burning in hell) rather than preference. My kids struggle with that enough. If my mother or ILs continued to push ideas that contributed to my kids' anxiety or contrary to my values, I would absolutely cut them off.

+1

Everyone is entitled to their ideas and is "free to voice those ideas". However, nobody is required to sit and take it and let it have negative responses for their kids/family. Would you let your parents tell your kids "you suck, you are stupid and if you don't figure out math you are going to burn a quick death sooner rather than later" or anything like that? I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to do that to my kid. That is not healthy for most kids (or adults). Your job as a parent is to protect your kids from terrible people and to also teach them that it is not healthy to surround yourself with people who treat you like crap. Hence why anyone doing that would be cut out of our lives. Just like I'd cut out a pedeophile or someone who hits/phsycially abuses my kid. This is verbal/mental abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay away from religious freaks. They cannot think for themselves.

Or maybe they have and just reached a different conclusion from you and want to offer you the chance to live in that joy.

But you know….potayyyto/potahhhto

No. Stop. If someone is not interested in your religion you need to back off.

I seriously hope OPs DH cuts off the religious freak parents. This thread has shown so few can actually be rational (and thank you to those who were!).

Your stance on this summarizes the problem with our country right now. Liberals used to be the ones advocating for people’s right to speak their opinion at the top of their lungs no matter what it us! In fact, Aaron Sorkin, when writing the famous pivotal speech for the fictitious Democrat President Andrew Shephard in the movie An American President, was hammering home an ACLU talking point emohasizjng: “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
But I no longer recognize the liberal left of that era. At present, neither the ACLU nor any other group that used to identify themselves as “liberal Democrats” appear to be able to tolerate anyone expressing viewpoints that are not in complete alignment with their own.
It’s quite the shift.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of free speech. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience of me or my kids. You are not free from consequence of that speech (in this case, being cut off).

I am all for people speaking their opinion. I don't care if someone burns a flag. Doesn't mean I have to listen to trumpers spewing garbage against the govt, or JK Rowling hating on trans kids or religious freaks trying to indocrinate my children.

+1000

Just like I'm free to stand up in a theater and yell "fire". However, I'm not free from the consequences of that action.

Same for me screaming "kill the president". I'm completely free to scream that in a public place. However, it also most likely means the Secret Service will be following up and might take me into custody and/or arrest me and charge me with a crime.

Actions have consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion is indoctrination full stop.

Religion is the largest population where sex abuse of children occurs.

OP tell you inlaws to take a hike.

Lots of things are “indoctrination.”

“Religion is the largest population where sex abuse of children occurs.” Nonsense. Family relationships, particularly parents, are the most frequent locus of abuse.

Followed by teachers.

Predators go where the children are. Period.

Religion is 1000% the top place children get sexually abused.

The updated numbers: out of 308 cases of child sex abuse or rape over the past 9 weeks, 17% are evangelical pastors or youth pastors, 21% hold some church position (not including a Bible teacher and a catholic school teacher). No drag queens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay away from religious freaks. They cannot think for themselves.

Or maybe they have and just reached a different conclusion from you and want to offer you the chance to live in that joy.

But you know….potayyyto/potahhhto

No. Stop. If someone is not interested in your religion you need to back off.

I seriously hope OPs DH cuts off the religious freak parents. This thread has shown so few can actually be rational (and thank you to those who were!).

Your stance on this summarizes the problem with our country right now. Liberals used to be the ones advocating for people’s right to speak their opinion at the top of their lungs no matter what it us! In fact, Aaron Sorkin, when writing the famous pivotal speech for the fictitious Democrat President Andrew Shephard in the movie An American President, was hammering home an ACLU talking point emohasizjng: “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
But I no longer recognize the liberal left of that era. At present, neither the ACLU nor any other group that used to identify themselves as “liberal Democrats” appear to be able to tolerate anyone expressing viewpoints that are not in complete alignment with their own.
It’s quite the shift.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of free speech. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience of me or my kids. You are not free from consequence of that speech (in this case, being cut off).

I am all for people speaking their opinion. I don't care if someone burns a flag. Doesn't mean I have to listen to trumpers spewing garbage against the govt, or JK Rowling hating on trans kids or religious freaks trying to indocrinate my children.

+1000

Just like I'm free to stand up in a theater and yell "fire". However, I'm not free from the consequences of that action.

Same for me screaming "kill the president". I'm completely free to scream that in a public place. However, it also most likely means the Secret Service will be following up and might take me into custody and/or arrest me and charge me with a crime.

Actions have consequences.

Your examples aren't the same. PP said you can speak freely but aren't shielded from consequence. People have a legal right to speak their opinions, but others don't need to make space for or respect those opinions.

Yelling "Fire" in a theater or verbally threatening the president are subject to legal prosecution. These aren't distasteful opinions. Your description of "being free to" really only applies to being able to do these things in a real, physical sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay away from religious freaks. They cannot think for themselves.

Or maybe they have and just reached a different conclusion from you and want to offer you the chance to live in that joy.

But you know….potayyyto/potahhhto

No. Stop. If someone is not interested in your religion you need to back off.

I seriously hope OPs DH cuts off the religious freak parents. This thread has shown so few can actually be rational (and thank you to those who were!).

Your stance on this summarizes the problem with our country right now. Liberals used to be the ones advocating for people’s right to speak their opinion at the top of their lungs no matter what it us! In fact, Aaron Sorkin, when writing the famous pivotal speech for the fictitious Democrat President Andrew Shephard in the movie An American President, was hammering home an ACLU talking point emohasizjng: “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
But I no longer recognize the liberal left of that era. At present, neither the ACLU nor any other group that used to identify themselves as “liberal Democrats” appear to be able to tolerate anyone expressing viewpoints that are not in complete alignment with their own.
It’s quite the shift.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of free speech. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience of me or my kids. You are not free from consequence of that speech (in this case, being cut off).

I am all for people speaking their opinion. I don't care if someone burns a flag. Doesn't mean I have to listen to trumpers spewing garbage against the govt, or JK Rowling hating on trans kids or religious freaks trying to indocrinate my children.

+1000

Just like I'm free to stand up in a theater and yell "fire". However, I'm not free from the consequences of that action.

Same for me screaming "kill the president". I'm completely free to scream that in a public place. However, it also most likely means the Secret Service will be following up and might take me into custody and/or arrest me and charge me with a crime.

Actions have consequences.

Your examples aren't the same. PP said you can speak freely but aren't shielded from consequence. People have a legal right to speak their opinions, but others don't need to make space for or respect those opinions.

Yelling "Fire" in a theater or verbally threatening the president are subject to legal prosecution. These aren't distasteful opinions. Your description of "being free to" really only applies to being able to do these things in a real, physical sense.

Okay, so you are free to say whatever you want in the presence of me and my family. We are then free to say "please don't talk like that, it's offensive. If you choose to continue to do that in our presence then you will not be invited to spend time with us"
It's the same thing. You are free to do lots of things, but there are consequences (on different levels) for each action.

However, if you believe in subjecting you and your kids to verbal abuse, then you are free to do so. Many would chose otherwise.


I can have discussions with friends and family about things that we differ in our beliefs. However, it has to be respectful on both sides. If you start telling me and my family we are going to burn in hell if we don't do X, then it is no longer respectful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay away from religious freaks. They cannot think for themselves.

Or maybe they have and just reached a different conclusion from you and want to offer you the chance to live in that joy.

But you know….potayyyto/potahhhto

No. Stop. If someone is not interested in your religion you need to back off.

I seriously hope OPs DH cuts off the religious freak parents. This thread has shown so few can actually be rational (and thank you to those who were!).

Your stance on this summarizes the problem with our country right now. Liberals used to be the ones advocating for people’s right to speak their opinion at the top of their lungs no matter what it us! In fact, Aaron Sorkin, when writing the famous pivotal speech for the fictitious Democrat President Andrew Shephard in the movie An American President, was hammering home an ACLU talking point emohasizjng: “You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”
But I no longer recognize the liberal left of that era. At present, neither the ACLU nor any other group that used to identify themselves as “liberal Democrats” appear to be able to tolerate anyone expressing viewpoints that are not in complete alignment with their own.
It’s quite the shift.

You fundamentally misunderstand the concept of free speech. You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to an audience of me or my kids. You are not free from consequence of that speech (in this case, being cut off).

I am all for people speaking their opinion. I don't care if someone burns a flag. Doesn't mean I have to listen to trumpers spewing garbage against the govt, or JK Rowling hating on trans kids or religious freaks trying to indocrinate my children.

+1000

Just like I'm free to stand up in a theater and yell "fire". However, I'm not free from the consequences of that action.

Same for me screaming "kill the president". I'm completely free to scream that in a public place. However, it also most likely means the Secret Service will be following up and might take me into custody and/or arrest me and charge me with a crime.

Actions have consequences.

Your examples aren't the same. PP said you can speak freely but aren't shielded from consequence. People have a legal right to speak their opinions, but others don't need to make space for or respect those opinions.

Yelling "Fire" in a theater or verbally threatening the president are subject to legal prosecution. These aren't distasteful opinions. Your description of "being free to" really only applies to being able to do these things in a real, physical sense.

Either way, you still misunderstand the concept. Using your religion to warp the constitution is pretty on brand though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Religion is indoctrination full stop.

Religion is the largest population where sex abuse of children occurs.

OP tell you inlaws to take a hike.

Lots of things are “indoctrination.”

“Religion is the largest population where sex abuse of children occurs.” Nonsense. Family relationships, particularly parents, are the most frequent locus of abuse.

Followed by teachers.

Predators go where the children are. Period.

Religion is 1000% the top place children get sexually abused.

The updated numbers: out of 308 cases of child sex abuse or rape over the past 9 weeks, 17% are evangelical pastors or youth pastors, 21% hold some church position (not including a Bible teacher and a catholic school teacher). No drag queens.

Source?

What about unreported cases?

What about cases not reported for years, decades even?

Are these convictions after due process, or allegations?

Sounds like cherry picking to support a prejudice.