Mike Dulak grew up Catholic in Southern California, but by his teen years, he began skipping Mass and driving straight to the shore to play guitar, watch the waves and enjoy the beauty of the morning. “And it felt more spiritual than any time I set foot in a church,” he recalled.

Nothing has changed that view in the ensuing decades.

“Most religions are there to control people and get money from them,” said Dulak, now 76, of Rocheport, Missouri. He also cited sex abuse scandals in Catholic and Southern Baptist churches. “I can’t buy into that,” he said.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall. Would you mind pointing at the part where I said so it or even implied so?

    What I said is that that isn’t proselytising. It’s a different concept to raise your kids in a certain way and to go to others who already have a different faith (or none) and try to convince them to convert.

    Of course, I know that everyone is born without any religion and by that account the limit is blurred, yet to raise a kid into one’s own faith and/or traditions is not the same as proselytising.

    As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

    Edit: word

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      I never said brainwashing children was ok as far as I can recall.

      Fair enough, you didn’t. I apologize. I lost track of the chain of posters and mixed you up with the first poster who didn’t seem to recognize the dangers of passing belief to children.

      As for Judaism, I stand by what I said: it’s not proselytist in the way other religions are, trying to convert other people. I don’t judge it as bad or as good, I don’t care. I just state a fact as I’ve seen/read.

      That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        01 year ago

        Apologies accepted, of course.

        That may be case. Which is possibly why, historically speaking, Judaism doesn’t seem to be on the winning side. Which is bad, because it means opportunities for more fanatical, agressive religions.

        On one hand, I agree. Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive. I mean, ultraorthodix Jews are as fanatical as your fellow Taliban or the right-wing Christians.

        Thanks for this exchange of opinions.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          Yet I think that had Judaism been more proselytist, it would have gained more followers and, probably, been more fanatical and aggressive.

          Yes, that’s what I’m counting on, since I assume that ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution. Unfortunately, the most whackiest, edgiest religions seem to be the most fit. Therefore my answer to the top level post.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            I agree.

            And your phrasing (italics are mine)

            ideas like religions take part in a long-term process of evolution.

            was quite interesting. Was it an intended pun? It made me laugh.