There is some evidence that Ramadan fasting could have a beneficial effect on your health. Eating only two meals a day could have the same beneficial effect. My only worry would be the lack of water through the day especially when it is hot.
That sounds very atypical. I have never even known a child do a partial fast until they are 9 or 10, and then very lightly, eg having a small lunch and drink.
9 and 10 is still primary school age. They'd struggle with PE and concentrating in the afternoon.
There is some evidence that Ramadan fasting could have a beneficial effect on your health. Eating only two meals a day could have the same beneficial effect. My only worry would be the lack of water through the day especially when it is hot.
As long as they eat the right foods and the right amount of foods when they do eat I don't see how Ramadan or eating twice a day will cause major health problems. There is far more evidence that continually eating all day could actually lead to insulin-resistance in the body.
Don't forget for most people in the past snacking and sometimes even having three meals a day wasn't an option. And if we go way back then sometimes eating everyday wasn't an option but our ancestors survived.
As I said the only worrying thing would the lack of fluids.
Do I admit? I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
What does it matter if I say yes or no to you? What value does that give you other than some further "proof" of the pointlessness of religion?
This is the point you and others consistently miss, or jeer at or disregard. The religion isn't the focus, it's that you believe at all. Once you get away from the belief of a God, the rest is semantics. Admittedly huge semantics across the spectrum but for me, faith is the concept here.
Sure, take away Islam, and put in Christianity. Fair enough. It's still a faith. Being a Muslim isn't a monopoly on faith. And this isn't some "woah dude....that's like....far out there, man" kind of thinking.
So you'd quite happily convert to Christianity as, according to you, it's essentially just swapping one faith for another, and "faith is the concept here"?
In my experience, explaining agnosticism to young children is a tricky thing. You patiently explain that some people believe x and other people believe y , and they look at you as if you were mad and ask which one is right. After all, when they ask how thunder happens, we don't give them a selection of different views to choose from.
Must be a bit scary to realise that some adults have chosen to maintain a position of uncertainty, despite the obvious lack of evidence (as they have hopefully been taught to understand the word) for the 'God is real' position.
Still, I maintain that it is impossible to avoid indoctrinating our children. And that we don't even notice if it is views that we agree with. Many of us would smile at a cute child demonstrating outside a much-loved hospital scheduled to be closed, and not at an equally cute child holding a swastika sign up at a nazi rally. The child understands neither of these standpoints. I indoctrinated my children to believe that gay relationships were of equal value to heterosexual ones. I indoctrinated them, by feeding them meat and fish, to believe that it is all right to eat meat and fish. They have not grown up homophobic, but they have grown up respectively vegetarian and vegan. You never know which bits of your indoctrination will stick.
So why choose to use that rather loaded word, if you just mean teach? You seem to be using a lot of superfluous words to incorporate "indoctrination" and "belief" when it would seem much less weighted if you simplify to ~I taught my children that gay relationships were of equal value to heterosexual ones.~
But, well done. I'm sure they'll turn out great, thanks, in part, to your wise teaching.
Humans will always use whatever justification they can to inflict violence against others, especially a state and it's elite desperate to retain power.
In one state the religion will be used/hijacked to retain that power, in another state religions may well be the scapegoat.
I know, right? It's almost as if the state is actually the common denominator here, rather than faith or atheism.
As long as they eat the right foods and the right amount of foods when they do eat I don't see how Ramadan or eating twice a day will cause major health problems. There is far more evidence that continually eating all day could actually lead to insulin-resistance in the body.
Don't forget for most people in the past snacking and sometimes even having three meals a day wasn't an option. And if we go way back then sometimes eating everyday wasn't an option but our ancestors survived.
As I said the only worrying thing would the lack of fluids.
Why not? Because children are still growing, their brains and body are still forming, they run around and are more active than adults. Eating before dawn and after sunset, particularly at this time of year is hazardous for them.
Why on earth would anyone encourage a child to fast for 16+ hours? Ridiculous!
So you'd quite happily convert to Christianity as, according to you, it's essentially just swapping one faith for another, and "faith is the concept here"?
Yet again a theoretical, completely unconnected question is used as justification for an actual argument. Absolute failure. If you cannot comprehend the art of debate, of theory, of thought with actual practice, then there is a serious problem.
Digital Spy forums are the ultimate in let downs. You hope for some sense, some reason in debate. You give people the benefit of the doubt, and in the end it's back to the same old same old.
I choose not to answer your question. Such is the freedom afforded to me by wisdom and logic and common sense.
Why not? Because children are still growing, their brains and body are still forming, they run around and are more active than adults. Eating before dawn and after sunset, particularly at this time of year is hazardous for them.
Why on earth would anyone encourage a child to fast for 16+ hours? Ridiculous!
So why choose to use that rather loaded word, if you just mean teach? You seem to be using a lot of superfluous words to incorporate "indoctrination" and "belief" when it would seem much less weighted if you simplify to ~I taught my children that gay relationships were of equal value to heterosexual ones.~
But, well done. I'm sure they'll turn out great, thanks, in part, to your wise teaching.
It IS a loaded word, but my point is that we only ever use it to describe the teaching of views we disagree with. People spout furiously that children are 'indoctrinated' if they are brought up with a religious faith but fail to recognise that the process is identical if they bring children up to believe that relgious faiths are rubbish. Either both situations can be described as 'teaching' or both situations can be described as 'indoctrination'. In saying that I indoctrinated my children to believe that gay relationships are equally valuable, I was selecting a fairly safe example: most FM's would agree. If I had taught them that they were not equal, I would be accused of indoctrinating them. But the difference is not in the process: it is in the acceptability of the view being taught.
It IS a loaded word, but my point is that we only ever use it to describe the teaching of views we disagree with. People spout furiously that children are 'indoctrinated' if they are brought up with a religious faith but fail to recognise that the process is identical if they bring children up to believe that relgious faiths are rubbish.
How can you miss the point so badly. Does being agnostic require that you give equal weight to the God/No God likelihood? Worrying if so. It isn't as equally likely that God, as described in any known ideology, really exists as it does not. Beliefs can only be indoctrinated. If they could be taught critically, as most things are - then where does faith come into it?
Either both situations can be described as 'teaching' or both situations can be described as 'indoctrination'. In saying that I indoctrinated my children to believe that gay relationships are equally valuable, I was selecting a fairly safe example: most FM's would agree. If I had taught them that they were not equal, I would be accused of indoctrinating them. But the difference is not in the process: it is in the acceptability of the view being taught.
Then we disagree. Religions are usually taught uncritically, so are worthy of being described as indoctrinating. Lack of religion need not even be taught, so how you can say there's equivalence is way beyond me.
Then we disagree. Religions are usually taught uncritically, so are worthy of being described as indoctrinating. Lack of religion need not even be taught, so how you can say there's equivalence is way beyond me.
Of course it must be taught. Child: "Does God really exist?" Parent: "......teaches child.....". The dotted line could represent anything from uncritical religious belief to uncritical atheism, or any position in between.
I have no experience of any kind of fundamentalist religion, but can promise that mainstream religious education is not what it was. Children are not just given pretty books with pictures of Daniel in the lion's den these days. It is all, "what do you think about x?" At our nearest church school, they seem particularly fond of those 'stand on a line' exercises, where THAT corner of the room means you completely agree with x, and THAT corner of the room means you completely disagree with x, and you can place yourself anywhere on the line.
And I don't think I have missed the point. I don't think you have dealt with my point, which is that we are far more likely to call something indoctrination if it concerns beliefs that we dislike.
How can you miss the point so badly. Does being agnostic require that you give equal weight to the God/No God likelihood? Worrying if so. It isn't as equally likely that God, as described in any known ideology, really exists as it does not. Beliefs can only be indoctrinated. If they could be taught critically, as most things are - then where does faith come into it?
Then we disagree. Religions are usually taught uncritically, so are worthy of being described as indoctrinating. Lack of religion need not even be taught, so how you can say there's equivalence is way beyond me.
Of course it must be taught. Child: "Does God really exist?" Parent: "......teaches child.....". The dotted line could represent anything from uncritical religious belief to uncritical atheism, or any position in between.
No it mustn't. The concept of God must be taught if a student is to believe in God, but nothing need be taught for them not to. Surely you can see that.
I have no experience of any kind of fundamentalist religion, but can promise that mainstream religious education is not what it was. Children are not just given pretty books with pictures of Daniel in the lion's den these days. It is all, "what do you think about x?" At our nearest church school, they seem particularly fond of those 'stand on a line' exercises, where THAT corner of the room means you completely agree with x, and THAT corner of the room means you completely disagree with x, and you can place yourself anywhere on the line.
And I don't think I have missed the point. I don't think you have dealt with my point, which is that we are far more likely to call something indoctrination if it concerns beliefs that we dislike.
It's possible some parents don't like music or sport. Have you ever heard anyone claim their child is or was indoctrinated by music lessons or forced PE?
It seems odd to me that you want to dispel the 'indoctrination' claims about religion by attaching it to a mere dislike of religion or saying it's the same as teaching. Being agnostic doesn't oblige you to support belief/believers, not saying you do particularly, but I do find it hard to distinguish them from believers sometimes.
As for children in the 'stand on a line' thing. I bet many, depending on their age of course, stand with their friends (or with whom they would be friends).
Wrong again, Roman Catholics are required to abstain from meat on ALL Fridays of the year unless a major feast known as a "Solemnity" Major feasts would include
The feast of St Peter and St Paul.
The solemnity of Mary Mother of God.
The solemnity of the most sacred heart of Jesus.
St Joseph`s day.
Christmas day.
solemnity of the Epiphany
The Friday during the Octave of Easter.
The solemnity of the Annunciation.
The Immaculate conception.
Also within the Roman Catholic faith during the season of lent Catholics are required to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday eating only one full meatless meal on those days, they are also encouraged to do extra fasts during this season of lent though the extra ones are optional but Ash Wednesday and Good Friday are not optional neither is giving up meat on all Fridays of the year.
Ex Roman Catholic.
I'm Roman Catholic and have never in my 54 years had to fast and I grew up with an old Irish religious ninny, the above quote might have been relevant around 1900s.
I'm Roman Catholic and have never in my 54 years had to fast and I grew up with an old Irish religious ninny, the above quote might have been relevant around 1900s.
That makes you an exception in my experience. I'm a little younger than you and my Irish ninnies both fasted and abstained, as did the wider family.
East London school changes Ramadan fasting policy after complaints
I don't get the issue there. Are the parents expecting the school to FORCE the children not to eat, just because the parents are unable to do it themselves at home? THAT IS NOT THE SCHOOL'S OR EVEN THE PARENTS JOB.
East London school changes Ramadan fasting policy after complaints
You beat me to posting the link. I object to state schools having to make special arrangements to suit religious eccentricities.
I believe it is totally inappropriate for children to "observe" Ramadam. It is just another technique to ensure unquestioning adherence to a particular religion's rules, and all that entails, and in some circumstances, extremely dire consequences. Of course there is peer pressure - what kid wouldn't want to be like mum or dad? Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned "logic" without appreciating the irony. There is no logic whatsoever in fasting during daylight hours (would be extremely difficult in Iceland at this time of the year), but when did logic have anything whatsoever to do with religion?
I may find all flavours of religion to be completely unfathomable, incompatible with the modern world, and potentially highly dangerous, but accept adults' freedom to believe whatever they want. However, I believe it extremely distasteful that children are indoctrinated in the manner they are. They should be free of religious brainwashing until they are of age to make up there own mind. That would never be allowed, however, as we all know what that would lead to.
It's hard to believe sometimes that it's 2014. If people want to indulge in this nonsense in their private lives it's their business (if there's no impact on how they do their jobs) but schools shouldn't get involved.
Comments
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Healthyramadan/Pages/fastingandhealth.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/Two-big-meals-better-than-six-snacks-for-diabetics.aspx
9 and 10 is still primary school age. They'd struggle with PE and concentrating in the afternoon.
Beneficial to growing children?
Why not?
As long as they eat the right foods and the right amount of foods when they do eat I don't see how Ramadan or eating twice a day will cause major health problems. There is far more evidence that continually eating all day could actually lead to insulin-resistance in the body.
Don't forget for most people in the past snacking and sometimes even having three meals a day wasn't an option. And if we go way back then sometimes eating everyday wasn't an option but our ancestors survived.
As I said the only worrying thing would the lack of fluids.
So you'd quite happily convert to Christianity as, according to you, it's essentially just swapping one faith for another, and "faith is the concept here"?
So why choose to use that rather loaded word, if you just mean teach? You seem to be using a lot of superfluous words to incorporate "indoctrination" and "belief" when it would seem much less weighted if you simplify to ~I taught my children that gay relationships were of equal value to heterosexual ones.~
But, well done. I'm sure they'll turn out great, thanks, in part, to your wise teaching.
I know, right? It's almost as if the state is actually the common denominator here, rather than faith or atheism.
Why not? Because children are still growing, their brains and body are still forming, they run around and are more active than adults. Eating before dawn and after sunset, particularly at this time of year is hazardous for them.
Why on earth would anyone encourage a child to fast for 16+ hours? Ridiculous!
Yet again a theoretical, completely unconnected question is used as justification for an actual argument. Absolute failure. If you cannot comprehend the art of debate, of theory, of thought with actual practice, then there is a serious problem.
Digital Spy forums are the ultimate in let downs. You hope for some sense, some reason in debate. You give people the benefit of the doubt, and in the end it's back to the same old same old.
I choose not to answer your question. Such is the freedom afforded to me by wisdom and logic and common sense.
http://gulfnews.com/life-style/health/initiating-your-child-into-ramadan-fasting-1.846649
This article here begs to differ. Naturally it would depend on the child's individual circumstances and correct decision making would have to made.
As I have said allowing a child just constantly snack can be just as dangerous as it keeps their insulin levels higher for longer.
It IS a loaded word, but my point is that we only ever use it to describe the teaching of views we disagree with. People spout furiously that children are 'indoctrinated' if they are brought up with a religious faith but fail to recognise that the process is identical if they bring children up to believe that relgious faiths are rubbish. Either both situations can be described as 'teaching' or both situations can be described as 'indoctrination'. In saying that I indoctrinated my children to believe that gay relationships are equally valuable, I was selecting a fairly safe example: most FM's would agree. If I had taught them that they were not equal, I would be accused of indoctrinating them. But the difference is not in the process: it is in the acceptability of the view being taught.
indoctrinate: verb - teach doctrines to; teach uncritically.
Then we disagree. Religions are usually taught uncritically, so are worthy of being described as indoctrinating. Lack of religion need not even be taught, so how you can say there's equivalence is way beyond me.
I have no experience of any kind of fundamentalist religion, but can promise that mainstream religious education is not what it was. Children are not just given pretty books with pictures of Daniel in the lion's den these days. It is all, "what do you think about x?" At our nearest church school, they seem particularly fond of those 'stand on a line' exercises, where THAT corner of the room means you completely agree with x, and THAT corner of the room means you completely disagree with x, and you can place yourself anywhere on the line.
And I don't think I have missed the point. I don't think you have dealt with my point, which is that we are far more likely to call something indoctrination if it concerns beliefs that we dislike.
great post, totally agree
It's possible some parents don't like music or sport. Have you ever heard anyone claim their child is or was indoctrinated by music lessons or forced PE?
It seems odd to me that you want to dispel the 'indoctrination' claims about religion by attaching it to a mere dislike of religion or saying it's the same as teaching. Being agnostic doesn't oblige you to support belief/believers, not saying you do particularly, but I do find it hard to distinguish them from believers sometimes.
As for children in the 'stand on a line' thing. I bet many, depending on their age of course, stand with their friends (or with whom they would be friends).
I'm Roman Catholic and have never in my 54 years had to fast and I grew up with an old Irish religious ninny, the above quote might have been relevant around 1900s.
That makes you an exception in my experience. I'm a little younger than you and my Irish ninnies both fasted and abstained, as did the wider family.
East London school changes Ramadan fasting policy after complaints
You beat me to posting the link. I object to state schools having to make special arrangements to suit religious eccentricities.
I believe it is totally inappropriate for children to "observe" Ramadam. It is just another technique to ensure unquestioning adherence to a particular religion's rules, and all that entails, and in some circumstances, extremely dire consequences. Of course there is peer pressure - what kid wouldn't want to be like mum or dad? Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned "logic" without appreciating the irony. There is no logic whatsoever in fasting during daylight hours (would be extremely difficult in Iceland at this time of the year), but when did logic have anything whatsoever to do with religion?
I may find all flavours of religion to be completely unfathomable, incompatible with the modern world, and potentially highly dangerous, but accept adults' freedom to believe whatever they want. However, I believe it extremely distasteful that children are indoctrinated in the manner they are. They should be free of religious brainwashing until they are of age to make up there own mind. That would never be allowed, however, as we all know what that would lead to.