World Religions: Statistics, Respect and Selecting a Faith

[the 48th regulator]

We both might be missing each other.  I would have had no argument if you were to have said something to the effect that, as a practice of your religion, you did not believe it acceptable to ever give your children a choice.  It would therefore seem reasonable for you to exercise this prerogative for as long as you are legally permitted (or even longer as a condition of living under your roof). 

I was of the misunderstanding that you were arguing for religious choice arbitrarily at 18 years & thus abdicating your responsibility to make an assessment of maturity.  In reality, I now suspect you are yielding to a legal limit imposed on you.

Okay,

Two scenarios.

A troop just completes all his training, and is now in battalion.  He enters the mess and orders an alcoholic beverage, you as a member of his chain of command know that he is underage.  What do you do?

A troop is on tour, let's make him the age of 26, after coming in from working he is done his day and is on some time to himself.  He reaches into his trusty bag and pulls out a bottle of Bushmills (Ah the Irish influence in me).  Knowing that this is a dry camp you see him take a haul and close the bottle and put it away.  What do you do?

The two soldiers above are free thinkers, and feel they are mature enough to make a decision.  What do you do?

dileas

tess

 

[X-mo-1979]

A troop just completes all his training, and is now in battalion.  He enters the mess and orders an alcoholic beverage, you as a member of his chain of command know that he is underage.  What do you do?

For me both situations bring me to my personal belief's.First scenerio the man is underage to drink,but old enough to serve his country.I say nothing to him,allow him to enjoy himself.As I BELIEVE it is not correct for a man to be on work-up training for Afganistan and not able to have a few beer's.It also is due to myself being kicke dout of a troop party at yogi's by my troop warrant cause I was underage.Not good for morale.

Scenerio two:
Take it and charge him.I have little time for idoit's on tour.He is now affecting my life,and the lifes of the soldiers around him.It also shows he obviously enjoy's alchol a little too much,and I have zero tolerance for alcholic's..due to past experiences and wasted lifes in my family due to alchol.

So I guess sometime's due to my personal belief's/past, I would break civil law.

Sorry for spelling error's,spell check not working for me.

 

[armyvern]

For me both situations bring me to my personal belief's.First scenerio the man is underage to drink,but old enough to serve his country.I say nothing to him,allow him to enjoy himself.As I BELIEVE it is not correct for a man to be on work-up training for Afganistan and not able to have a few beer's.It also is due to myself being kicke dout of a troop party at yogi's by my troop warrant cause I was underage.Not good for morale.

Scenerio two:
Take it and charge him.I have little time for idoit's on tour.He is now affecting my life,and the lifes of the soldiers around him.It also shows he obviously enjoy's alchol a little too much,and I have zero tolerance for alcholic's..due to past experiences and wasted lifes in my family due to alchol.

So I guess sometime's due to my personal belief's/past, I would break civil law.

Sorry for spelling error's,spell check not working for me.

Interesting that your personal beliefs would interfere with you "officially" intervening in scenario one ... you'd in fact also be condoing the commission of an offense (a service offense in and of itself); I say that because in scenario two you act TO enforce the regulations (as one should), but note that you'd do so because it involves alcohol and because of alcohols influence on your past life.

I guess the dilemma that I see with that is that in scenario one -- alcohol is also involved. Do we let it slide because the guy can now deploy?? If so, so can the guy in scenario 2. But it's illegal to drink while deployed as in scenario 2? But it's illegal to drink in scenario 1 as it's described as well.

I see a moral conflict here in that you'd punish the adult and enforce the no drinking (the guy who definitly does and should know better) ... but you wouldn't enforce the no drinking with the youngest -- who is exactly the one who perhaps does not know better ... and perhaps is in need of guidance. Perhaps that 18 year old underaged drinker will now become your next alcoholic subordinate?? You condoned the activity knowing it was "not allowed". I guess that's where I'm confused on your reasoning.

You state that you'd be sure to enforce regulations with a drinking adult, but not with a drinking minor because of your previous dealings with alcoholism in your family etc. I don't understand why then, alcohol and involvement with such by a minor would be "acceptable of overlooking infraction" -- I think it'd be the opposite reaction. Much like "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?" ???

Things such as this are exactly why we are expected to follow ALL orders and directives -- not just the ones we chose for whatever personal reason.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Interesting that your personal beliefs would interfere with you "officially" intervening in scenario one ... you'd in fact also be condoing the comission of an offense (a service offense in and of itself); I say that because in scenario two you act TO enforce the regulations (as one should), but note that you'd do so because it involves alcohol and because of alcohols influence on your past life.

I guess the dilemma that I see with that is that in scenario one -- alcohol is also involved. Do we let it slide because the guy can now deploy?? If so, so can the guy in scenario 2. But it's illegal to drink while deployed as in scenario 2? But it's illegal to drink in scenario 1 as it's described as well.

I see a moral conflict here in that you'd punish the adult and enforce the no drinking (the guy who definitly does and should know better) ... but you wouldn't enforce the no drinking with the youngest -- who is exactly the one who perhaps does not know better ... and perhaps is in need of guidance.

And that is why I dig Vern!!!

This is what I talk about.  Parameters.   Free will is a phenomenal concept.  I think therefore I am.  However, in our society we have rules.  Whether they are laws, rules, or guidlines they exist to ensure we as a society function.  Now where is this first established?  At home, when children are growing up.

Be it religion, the type of socks one wears, when someone drives a car, or when a drink is taken, it is up to the parent to teach the "Lanes" where a child must learn to stay in.  Within those lanes that child will learn to grow, and apply free thinking to become a better adult.

dileas

tess

 

[X-mo-1979]

Interesting that your personal beliefs would interfere with you "officially" intervening in scenario one ... you'd in fact also be condoing the commission of an offense (a service offense in and of itself); I say that because in scenario two you act TO enforce the regulations (as one should), but note that you'd do so because it involves alcohol and because of alcohols influence on your past life.

I guess the dilemma that I see with that is that in scenario one -- alcohol is also involved. Do we let it slide because the guy can now deploy?? If so, so can the guy in scenario 2. But it's illegal to drink while deployed as in scenario 2? But it's illegal to drink in scenario 1 as it's described as well.

I see a moral conflict here in that you'd punish the adult and enforce the no drinking (the guy who definitly does and should know better) ... but you wouldn't enforce the no drinking with the youngest -- who is exactly the one who perhaps does not know better ... and perhaps is in need of guidance. Perhaps that 18 year old underaged drinker will now become your next alcoholic subordinate?? You condoned the activity knowing it was "not allowed". I guess that's where I'm confused on your reasoning.

You state that you'd be sure to enforce regulations with a drinking adult, but not with a drinking minor because of your previous dealings with alcoholism in your family etc. I don't understand why then, alcohol and involvement with such by a monir would be "acceptable of overlooking infraction" -- I think it'd be the opposite reaction.  ???

Things such as this are exactly why we are expected to follow ALL orders and directives -- not just the ones we chose for whatever personal reason.

I do agree with what your saying Vern. I don't ever pretend to be perfect,and honestly I would look the other way due to BEING the kid who was good enough to drive a tank for the troop,but when going to troop functions was not allowed alcohol or was blatantly KICKED out of the event.Team building.

Drinking on tour and drinking in a mess in Canada is not the same in my book's.And legally I KNOW it is.You are right.However I would defiantly NOT see that first scenario happening when and if asked about it.

If an adult who know's better is drinking on a tour of duty where lifes are at risk,his own and other's I would hammer him hard.It also show's that he obviously has an issue with alcohol due to not being able to stay away from it for a couple months.

A 18 yr old kid kick back a beer in a mess in Canada,I never saw anything.Some may say I have even bought a underaged guy a beer while in the mess.

 

[armyvern]

I do agree with what your saying Vern. I don't ever pretend to be perfect,and honestly I would look the other way due to BEING the kid who was good enough to drive a tank for the troop,but when going to troop functions was not allowed alcohol or was blatantly KICKED out of the event.Team building.

Drinking on tour and drinking in a mess in Canada is not the same in my book's.And legally I KNOW it is.You are right.However I would defiantly NOT see that first scenario happening when and if asked about it.

If an adult who know's better is drinking on a tour of duty where lifes are at risk,his own and other's I would hammer him hard.It also show's that he obviously has an issue with alcohol due to not being able to stay away from it for a couple months.

A 18 yr old kid kick back a beer in a mess in Canada,I never saw anything.Some may say I have even bought a underaged guy a beer while in the mess.

But, that's exactly WHAT has me questionning your responses as to what you'd do for each scenario.

The fact that you'd HAMMER the adult who knows better (and thus is quite able to make up his own mind regarding drinking or not) because, as you've stated, alcohol had been a bad influence on your life.

But, it's just as ILLEGAL for that minor to drink (it's not less illegal, not somewhat less illegal -- it's JUST AS ILLEGAL) for that minor to drink. Guess what? Underage drinkers are at a very HIGH risk level to become alcoholics -- in fact, underage drinking is a sign of alcoholism ... yet in this case you'd let the minor get away with an illegal activity (and perhaps even contribute to that offense by providing alcohol) when, in actuality -- you actually enforcing the rules may prevent such from occuring with this minor; at the very least the minor is the person who needs the most guidance ... yet you'd guide him in a manner that actually condones drinking and that ignores illegal activity. What's he learning?? That it's quite OK to pick and choose what orders to follow.

I'm wondering exactly how your previous bad experiences with alcoholism are not at play in scenario one and resulting in you bringing down the hammer on the kid ... and acting as a guide rather than simply condoning the activity (in fact actually providing alcohol perhaps)??

That's my take on it.

 

[X-mo-1979]

As I said lifes at risk.

I see it as a harmless beer with the boys in the mess.He is not an alcoholic.No reason for me to believe he is becoming one.A kid trying to fit into a reg force unit at 18.I was that kid.I'm not an alcoholic.Infact there are 18 beer from a 24 in my fridge that will most likely go bad,which I bought in Jan.I have drank one of those and just give em out to company.

The second he is proving he has issues with alcohol,as he cannot stay away from it.Plus endangering lifes.

Iunderstand what your saying about the legality issues.I'm totally wrong on that,and yes I have purchased alcohol for minor's,who wear the same uniform as me.Guilty.

 

[armyvern]

As I said lifes at risk.

I see it as a harmless beer with the boys in the mess.He is not an alcoholic.No reason for me to believe he is becoming one.A kid trying to fit into a reg force unit at 18.I was that kid.I'm not an alcoholic.Infact there are 18 beer from a 24 in my fridge that will most likely go bad,which I bought in Jan.I have drank one of those and just give em out to company.

The second he is proving he has issues with alcohol,as he cannot stay away from it.Plus endangering lifes.

Iunderstand what your saying about the legality issues.I'm totally wrong on that,and yes I have purchased alcohol for minor's,who wear the same uniform as me.Guilty.

I somehow thought because you said "It also shows he obviously enjoy's alchol a little too much, and I have zero tolerance for alcholic's..due to past experiences and wasted lifes in my family due to alchol." For the adult who's capable of making his own decisions in life for scenario 2 ...

Yet, for the 18 year old kid -- you have such a different standard. Eerily he is the one who most needs guidance due to his young age. And, I really figured that your "zero tolerance" would be applicable especially so with a minor. Hopefully he never develops into an alcoholic -- you may have a hard time explaining your actions in contributing to such; and I'm wondering how, should that occur, you'd look at yourself given that you knew better and the dangers of alcohol exactly because of your experiences with it.

Lots of alcoholics who've broken the "no drinking rule" overseas in the military (a lot of them weren't alcoholics at 18 years old either!!), started out as 18 year olds in the Mess having their beers bought for them by their superiors. Perhaps that buddy that you're going to HAMMER was one of them. Perhaps --- if only his superiors had done the right thing and taught him differently in the first place -- when he was still young, eager to learn, and willing to listen.

Lead by example. Teach them that it's OK to pick and choose orders they are going to obey or not -- DO NOT be surprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass ... after all -- they're 18, young, and impressionable -- like sponges.

 

[X-mo-1979]

And my view.

When you treat combat troop's like children,expect them to be children.

When you refuse to let someone fit in,expect them to be an outcast.

I've never asked for career courses,never attended after work functions outside the troop level.However somehow they are pushing me up the chain.Someone must see something I guess.

I look at the mess as not at work,tour is work.Drugs of anytype and work do not mix.

And Vern believe me I do understand what your saying,but that's the way I am....and quite a few other's as well.

Man enough to wear a uniform man enough to have a beer IMHO.

 

[McG]

The two soldiers above are free thinkers, and feel they are mature enough to make a decision.  What do you do?

Your analogy is again irrelevant.  One soldier violated the law while the other violated a lawful order.  Eight year old Timmy deciding that he does/doesn't want to be Presbyterian has violated neither law nor lawful order. 

Additionally, this is not about allowing children to make a decision becuase the child thinks he/she is mature enough.  It is about allowing children to make decisions because you (the parent) feel they are mature enough.  Your position is that you will allow your children to make religious choice at the age of 18.  The age of 18 has no foundation in religion, but rather it comes from an arbitrary age set by the government on completely unrelated issues.

I'm at a loss & really do not understand where your position is. In attempting to connect the dots I only arrive at three possibilities:

1.  You believe in a divine law which demands you not allow your children a religious choice.  Given that Canadian law protects freedom of religion, you will enforce your religion up to 18 when you no longer are allowed; or
2.  You've decided the government knows more about raising your children than you, and so (rather than judge their maturity/ability to decide) you have accepted the governments arbitrary & unrelated age.
3.  You believe that the 18th birthday will magically bestow a level of maturity that will allow youth to make religious decisions.

The first of these three, is a legitimate argument in my eyes.  If one of these fit, let me know.  If I am off with all three, please clarify with an explanation.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Your analogy is again irrelevant.  One soldier violated the law while the other violated a lawful order.  Eight year old Timmy deciding that he does/doesn't want to be Presbyterian has violated neither law nor lawful order. 

Additionally, this is not about allowing children to make a decision because the child thinks he/she is mature enough.  It is about allowing children to make decisions because you (the parent) feel they are mature enough.  Your position is that you will allow your children to make religious choice at the age of 18.  The age of 18 has no foundation in religion, but rather it comes from an arbitrary age set by the government on completely unrelated issues.

I'm at a loss & really do not understand where your position is. In attempting to connect the dots I only arrive at three possibilities:

1.  You believe in a divine law which demands you not allow your children a religious choice.  Given that Canadian law protects freedom of religion, you will enforce your religion up to 18 when you no longer are allowed; or
2.  You've decided the government knows more about raising your children than you, and so (rather than judge their maturity/ability to decide) you have accepted the governments arbitrary & unrelated age.
3.  You believe that the 18th birthday will magically bestow a level of maturity that will allow youth to make religious decisions.

The first of these three, is a legitimate argument in my eyes.  If one of these fit, let me know.  If I am off with all three, please clarify with an explanation.

18.

Yes the magic number that it is.


I do not believe it bestows a level of maturity, however I strive as a parent to have my child reach the level of maturity at the age of 18, as proscribed by law of the land.

Does the Government direct the way I raise my children?  Do I need to use age set by a government to gauge when a child is Mature?

Do you not see the large picture.  We as a society grow, live and survive together.  It is what makes us who we are.  There is no such thing as person being born and doing what he or she wishes what they do.  That is pure anarchy.

I as a parent raise a child I best see fit, to survive and be part of a community.  The community has set Guidelines, rules and laws in place to make the community endure, continue.  Within that society, I am allowed to choose the finite ways I guide my family to live within the Parameters set by the society.  As long as my family does, everyone benefits.

The crux of it all is when someone steps in and states that these finite ways are wrong.  What is it that they are achieving?  Are the goals being met, are the children growing up to be a positive force within the society?

That is where you have to realize about free thinking MCG, we live within the community of humanity, which is why I support all peoples' beliefs, however they must abide by the laws of the land.

BTW, you never answered my two moral dilemmas....

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

MCG,

I'm thinking that you took Tess' post out of context. He's using the 18 rule to illustrate previous comments about "maturity levels" when combined with "age of majority" issues. In that, it is the foundations and building blocks established within the child's upbringing and homelife that will either grow a well matured child or not.

I don't think he's insinuating that he does not allow his child a religious choice, and most certainly does his post not indicate that he would force this upon a child until the age of 18 (or any other specific age);

Rather that, even though many "ages" are set by law within our society --- there is no guarantee that upon reaching that "magical age" mandated by the feds will result in a pers capable of making whichever decision that "age" imparts upon them. Some kids will be responsible drinkers at 19, some will not. Some will be responsible drivers at 16, some will not.

It is a parents duty to attempt to instill the best values, ethics, and morals into their offspring that they can. Sending their child to church will certainly not cause them to be worse off in the world when they mature enough to be capable of making the decision as to whether or not they wish to continue on that path on their own -- regardless of whatever age they become "mature" enough to make decisions of this nature. Every person is an individual, but there's nothing wrong with with parents making decisions for their children until that maturity level is developed.

What if the child wished to be religious, yearned for it even, yet the parent had decided "not to allow the child to go to Sunday school as they didn't want to unduley influence the child towards any religious affiliation and wanted the child to make the decision on their own"? What has that child now missed out on in his parents attempts to make him a "free-thinker"?

I really have difficulties seeing how sending a young child to church would make them "worse off" than had they not attended church or how one could justify or substantiate that sending them to Church would result in them not being free-thinkers.  I went to Sunday School as a young one ... and at about the age of 12 I said to my parents ... this is not for me. I am certainly not a worse off person for it, nor do I think I'm a better off person for it. Rather -- I am just me ... and I am a free-thinker.

It's a case of a parent making a decision for a child. Period. The decision can be "not to send them to church" or "to send them to church" -- either way it is the parent MAKING the decision and the child having no say (ie not being a free-thinker). Neither one is wrong.

 

[McG]

18
Yes the magic number that it is.

Why?  If a 14 year old displace the maturity & understanding to make thier own religious decision, why would you deny it?

... I strive as a parent to have my child reach the level of maturity at the age of 18, as proscribed by law of the land.

and if they reach that level of maturity early, you have already decided not to allow the freedom to exercise it?  Why?  There is no "law of the land" which would not allow them to exercise thier own decision with respect to religion.

There is no such thing as person being born and doing what he or she wishes what they do.  That is pure anarchy.

I've not advocated anything of the sort.  I have suggested that people be permitted to make decisions of a level fitting their maturity as judged by their parents.  As you've put it "Parameters" but you don't link the importance/complexity of the decision to the parents' assessment of maturity.  Children & youth are allowed to make many decisions below the age of majority.  Why would you choose to tie a decision, based on neither legislated requirement nor societal norm, to the age of majority?

That is where you have to realize about free thinking MCG, we live within the community of humanity, which is why I support all peoples' beliefs, however they must abide by the laws of the land.

Yes, we must abide by the laws of the land.  This is eloquent & irrelevant.  There is no law which restricts religious choice to those of 18 or older.  You personally have decided that you will restrict this choice.  As I've already stated, I can accept such a decision if it were made through a religious belief.  But everything you've posted suggests that you've decided to let the government decide when they will be old enough (based on an arbitrary legislated age).

BTW, you never answered my two moral dilemmas....

I did, but I kept it short because your analogy is not relevant (as I previously illustrated), but here again:  both soldiers screwed-up & both will be sorted by the sergeant major accordingly.

Although, maybe Vern's found the issue.  She has read me right.  Does she have your position right?

MCG,

I'm thinking that you took Tess' post out of context. He's using the 18 rule to illustrate previous comments about "maturity levels" when combined with "age of majority" issues. In that, it is the foundations and building blocks established within the child's upbringing and homelife that will either grow a well matured child or not.

I don't think he's insinuating that he does not allow his child a religious choice, and most certainly does his post not indicate that he would force this upon a child until the age of 18 (or any other specific age);

 

[the 48th regulator]

Why?  If a 14 year old displace the maturity & understanding to make thier own religious decision, why would you deny it?
and if they reach that level of maturity early, you have already decided not to allow the freedom to exercise it?  Why?  There is no "law of the land" which would not allow them to exercise thier own decision with respect to religion.
I've not advocated anything of the sort.  I have suggested that people be permitted to make decisions of a level fitting their maturity as judged by their parents.  As you've put it "Parameters" but you don't link the importance/complexity of the decision to the parents' assessment of maturity.  Children & youth are allowed to make many decisions below the age of majority.  Why would you choose to tie a decision, based on neither legislated requirement nor societal norm, to the age of majority?
Yes, we must abide by the laws of the land.  This is eloquent & irrelevant.  There is no law which restricts religious choice to those of 18 or older.  You personally have decided that you will restrict this choice.  As I've already stated, I can accept such a decision if it were made through a religious belief.  But everything you've posted suggests that you've decided to let the government decide when they will be old enough (based on an arbitrary legislated age).
I did, but I kept it short because your analogy is not relevant (as I previously illustrated), but here again:  both soldiers screwed-up & both will be sorted by the sergeant major accordingly.

Although, maybe Vern's found the issue.  She has read me right.  Does she have your position right?

If one has strong religious beliefs and is of the conviction that baptism (or other religious rites of initiation) are essential to human spiritual development (or spiritual protection or spiritual survival or whatever), well then that person will ensure their children pass these milestones.  As part of their religious belief, this is looking after the child in the best way possible; failing to do this would be as irresponsible as not teaching a child to keep of the street while playing.

One minute you advocate that the parent has the right to choose the direction of the child's upbringing, then you flop over to a freethinking attitude towards the child

I did, but I kept it short because your analogy is not relevant (as I previously illustrated), but here again:  both soldiers screwed-up & both will be sorted by the sergeant major accordingly.

Oh,

My analogy is quite relevent, where does one decide what is morally or legally right?  No one has that right.  One has the right to decide what they do within the parameters, not decide how to interpret them. 

And for the record, in my household I am the Sergeant Major, and My wife is the Colonel!

dileas

tess

 

[McG]

One minute you advocate that the parent has the right to choose the direction of the child's upbringing, then you flop over to a freethinking attitude towards the child

My position has not changed.  The parent has the right to choose the direction of the child's upbringing & (at the same time) the responsibility to assess the child's ability to take on progressively more complex issues.  There are rules for which there are no exceptions, and there are certain legislated ages under which children may not do certain things or make certain decisions which are acceptable to adults.  When a parent judges a child ready to make decisions, that child should be permitted (provided they are not under legally proscribed age limits) in order to further develop the child.  At the same time, there is no obligation to permit a child to do something simply because they have passed the minimum legislated age (some 16 year olds are not ready to drive).

If you review my previous post (specifically the ref to Vern's post) you will see that we may be arguing different things.  I may have misinterpreted your comments to Richie (Reply 67) as you suggesting no religious freedom until age 18, when that was not your intent.  If Vern has read you correctly, were not in disagreement; we are in different arguments. 

 

[vonGarvin]

What on earth have I done?  I was only trying to point out that to leave religion to a child, in my opinion, is a cop-out.  That's where this mess started.  If you choose to not raise a child by any sort of religious beliefs, or even to raise your child as an atheist, fine.  That's a parents choice on how to raise that child, that's all.
Now, I can only talk about my own religion, but as Yrys alluded to, in Roman Catholicism, there is the sacrament of confirmation.  I made the choice when I was 12 (?) to be confirmed as a Roman Catholic.  My parents made no pressure (though I'm certain my nana did!), and in fact I remember way back when discussing it with my mother.  She talked about it with me, not telling me her views, but eliciting mine from me, ensuring that I knew what I was doing. 
Even though this example is about religion, the fact is my mother was educating her number three son (me) in making an informed decision. 
This discussion devolved into applicibility of laws.  I don't know how that happened, just that it happened with all the grace of a train wreck.  For what it's worth, we cannot choose which laws to follow.  In order to have an ordered and just society, we must follow all laws, even those laws with which we disagree.  If we feel strongly that said laws are in themselves unjust, then we can legislate to change them.  Otherwise, though we may not agree with it, an 18 year old can train in Ontario for war, and even deploy from Ontario to war, but that 18 year old cannot drink alcohol (unless he's Catholic and it's part of the Eucharist)  >
As for my pet peeve law that I follow but do not agree with: the ban on married couples from having sexual relations while deployed in an operational theatre.  (My wife is not in the CF, but she is my WIFE....OK, I'll stop now before I go overboard: this thread is already a train wreck).

 

[X-mo-1979]

Choo Choo conductor. ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

All aboard the Crazy Train!

 

[Richie]

In the time that you folks have spent bandying this back and forth, we atheists have moved from number 3 to number 2 in the world rankings!  8)

 

[Yrys]

In the time that you folks have spent bandying this back and forth, we atheists have moved from number 3 to number 2 in the world rankings!  8)

For me, it's not the number of people in one faith or nonreligious that mather. It's the people's action. What they think and to a certain extent what they say
is by far less important that how they react to other people. Do they help around them, even only to the extent of smiling or giving a compliment to somebody
that seem to need it, or do they turn a blind eyes ?

Think about people going out of church, looking trough homeless asking for money outside, having just lessens to a sermon about helping thy neighbor...
But they can be in a hurry to go to their volunteering in a homeless shelter or to an invalid that need companionship and couldn't go to the mass...

I'm not judging people by their faith or lack of. Well, I'm also trying not to judge people by their thinking or saying, but, hey, I'm human.

I've read an anecdote in a newpaper a long time ago. Feminist circle in university very proud of a young mother educating alone her child and going
to university. She was ask to present to a numbers of events celebrating women's right, etc.  The author of the article, a woman, reflect on what was going
on  behind the scene. A teacher, male, with a sticker of retrograd macho by those women, had ask her what kind of help she need and giving it, keeping it private.

As a woman, which of the two, the celebrating feminists or the teacher helping do you think I approve of more ?