Is teaching your child about your religion mental abuse?

[rvg]

All humans pursue pleasure and happiness. Or at least what they think will grant them those two things.

So, when a soldier covers up a live grenade with his body in order to save his buddies, how exactly is he seeking pleasure or happiness?

[seireikhaan]

At a young age, a child is programmed to believe whatever it's parents (or anyone it recognizes as authority) say, because testing things out scientifically at that age can be fatal. So if the parents tell their child about god, the child will not be making a choice whether to believe or not - it will just automatically believe because the parents said so. As the child grows up, it's highly unlikely that it will think more about it, and thus won't question it then either. The meme will have taken it's roots, and it would be very hard for the person to shake it off. Ask anyone who has deconverted from a faith they were taught to believe in as a child. Guess why religion always say "give us the boy and we'll give you the man"?

Programmed? Don't make me laugh. You act as though children are robots. I was taken to church every sunday, went to Religious Ed up through middle school, was confirmed in eighth grade. Then, I went to a Catholic high school. And yet, I'm still questioning Christianity quite a bit. Only through absolute ground pounding, "gonna go to hell" policies do you so completely ingrain beliefs.

It is indoctrination. It is child abuse. If you really can't keep your religion for yourself, let your child first learn critical thinking, then tell it about religion (and not just your own).

Again, you imply that parents who teach their child religion should have their kids taken away from them and put in foster homes. So much for freedom.

Atheism is not a religion any more than "off" is a TV channel. It simply isn't. Religion is the practice of worshipping a god/gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods, and therefore it is not a religion.

As for the "evangelical" part, yes, atheists can be outspoken, and we bloody well should be. If theists could keep their religion from affecting someone else than themselves, then yes, I'd say leave it be, but people don't. People vote on their beliefs, they try to pass laws and regulations, they blow themselves and other people up because of their beliefs. We simply cannot stay silent and just watch.

Perhaps you should try an anthropology or sociology course? Ever heard of animism? Shaminism? Religion simply cannot be defined as a belief in god/gods. Its a belief in the supernatural. Frankly, Atheists who are as sure of themselves as religious fanatics are just as bad.

LOL! Go to the middle east and say you're an atheist - see how long you get to keep your head. Admittedly, the Christians in America are a little better - they just disown you if they're your parents, leave you if they're your friends, fire you if they're your employer or persecute you if they just know you're an atheist.

No, not everyone does that. A majority, though... yes.

Hmm. Tell me, have you ever lived in America for an extended time? If not, then please don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.

Showing them that there's no basis for their irrational belief is not a bad thing. Sure, people can do it in bad ways, but religious beliefs doesn't deserve respect. That is not to say the believer doesn't deserve respect, but the belief doesn't. No belief does. It either stands on it's own merits, or it falls for it's lack of them.

Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.

Care to back that up with some evidence? You can't just say "there has never been a society without religion" and expect us to take your word for it.

A better question, frankly, would be can you find a society which evolved with no belief in the supernatural.

Why religion has been so widespread is because humans are naturally curious. We want answers, and when we didn't have the science to find them out, we made them up. That eased our minds, because it felt better to pretend to have the answers rather than to admit that you don't know.

Not gonna argue much with you here.

Stop lying, it isn't. Sweden is 85% atheist, Norway 80% and I don't remember the percentage for the Danes, but it's up in the 80's as well. It is a very, very, very secular and atheistic place.

Sources? Census? Something?

Tabula rasa is wrong. The reason why that is, is because religion is one thing that we're not born with - it's something we're taught. That doesn't mean that we're not born with anything - morals such as not to kill other people we're born with thanks to evolution and more importantly natural selection.



This is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. If you don't know anything about biology, don't talk about it. Mm'kay? Anyone who has studied human behaviour would laugh at that claim. I just cry. Just to show how strong our instincts are, it's well understood by psychologists that control over a person's sexuality is pretty much equivalent to control over the person itself.

No argument here.

The other way around goes for atheists in America. Not to mention homosexuals... what's that whole "coming out of the closet" thing again?

Once again; unless you have lived in America for several years, in the various regions across America, I ask that don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.

Political views, yes. Let the kid develop critical thinking before getting in to politics.

Moral views? Not completely. For example, we're born with a mental barrier against killing other people thanks to evolution and natural selection, as I mentioned before. Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.

How do you define what "morals" to teach children, then? How do you think morals originally were supported?

[Ronin]

So, when a soldier covers up a live grenade with his body in order to save his buddies, how exactly is he seeking pleasure or happiness?

we are instilled by society to protect those around us.....like I have said a bunch of times....instinct can be overridden....you are sticking to a rigid definition of "instinct" that is not correct.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Celtic and Makaikhaan-

Let's not disrespect one another. Please remember that although this is an emotionally charged issue, everyone here is worthy of respect and we can phrase our disagreements or our opinions in less sweeping generalities, or in disrespectful language.

I think this discussion is worth having, but such things could lock the thread.

Please be kind to one another.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

You will all calm down right away, or this thread will be closed and warnings issued.

Please respect each other's viewpoints when discussing this sensitive subject.

Thank you kindly.

[seireikhaan]

Sorry, ATPG, but when someone starts talking about how we need not respect a person's religious beliefs, it rather sets me off. Not to mention staking out broad generalizations about which misrepresent religion as a concept, staking it as an inherent evil, as well as bashing whole other nations for their supposed intolerance when that person does not live there, quite gets me riled up as well. If he does not respect me, I will not respect him.

[rvg]

ok...I´ll try this another way..

do you agree that animals like dogs and tigers have instincts?

if so how do you explain the fact that these animals can be trained to change those behaviors?

When I see a hot young brunette walking down the street I want to have sex with her...that´s instinctive.....society whoever has "trained" us to know it is not correct to simply follow that instinct.......it´s the same thing as the tiger that learned to jump through hoops at the circus instead of ripping the trainers head off.

Of course almost all animals have instincts. That doesn't mean however, that *all* of their behavior is instinctive and thus not subject to change. What instincts they *do* have however, are not subject to change. If you want to talk pure instinct, take a really primitive animal like a worker ant.

[Viking]

No, it isn't. Sweden is 85% atheist, Norway 80% and I don't remember the percentage for the Danes, but it's up in the 80's as well. It is a very, very, very secular and atheistic place.

Thats's not correct. I believe it was around 20% Christians. The rest are not atheists; I saw an EU survey linked to some time back, and a lot were labelled as believing in some sort of "life force". (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf; p. 9, France appears to be the country with the most atheists in Europe)

As for being a Christian here in Scandinavia, I believe Kadagar is overstating things. Religion is simply not talked about. It's something people kept for themselves, and it wasn't until I came in contact with theists from other places that did not keep it to themselves that I started speaking out like I do now.

Personally I find it talked about rather frequently, ho hum.

Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.

This depends on how you want society to function; and if you believe that it should actually function at all.

Too much censorship on these boards.

I doubt anything but swearwords was removed. I was actually going to type a reply to your post; but it dissappeared before I got time to quote it.

[rvg]

we are instilled by society to protect those around us.....like I have said a bunch of times....instinct can be overridden....you are sticking to a rigid definition of "instinct" that is not correct.

And why exactly is it not correct?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I also believe and can prove that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion. Logic itself dictates what actions are immoral.

To kill an innocent person is irrational destruction, and causes unnecessary pain. That's illogical.

To steal from innocent people harms them, and gives you something which you do not deserve. You did not earn it honestly, and you are in volation of the law and social contract of the land, and you are bringing disorder and chaos to the land, which causes us to have to bring police into the situation, which puts people in prison, and drains society as a whole. On every level, stealing is illogical except in survival situations, and even then it usually doesn't hurt to ask for help first.

Cheating on your spouse betrays trust and can cause unwanted pregnancy and also spread STDs, and causes oneself to grow suspicious and guilty. There are so many logical reasons not to cheat.

Addictive drugs are self-destructive and dangerous to others when under the influence.

Any immoral action is also inherently irrational or illogical. Torture, for example, may yield information, but like stealing may yield necessary items, the path you take to get there is flawed. Firstly, you could be damaging an innocent person. Secondly, the people you need to torture to get information from are sometimes trained to withstand it. Many are willing to die. And some who might have been willing to talk will refuse once tortured. Torture is in most circumstances counterproductive, and it is essentially wrong and immoral.

There are circumstances where a society will break its ethical code to torture the most hardened criminal or terrorist, but that does not mean it is the most rational method of gaining information, nor does it mean that the information needs to be gained at all, especially using such a method.

Religion or superstition is a set of ideas which do not have a solid basis in what we understand and know to be reality or proven science. Faith is the belief in those ideas. They may or may not be wrong ideas, but we cannot prove that they are right (or wrong). As such, the rational mind should adhere to rational knowledge above irrational belief. People do not always do this, and when that happens, we have witch trials, public beheadings, terrorist bombings, suicide attacks, mass suicide, stoning of heretics, teaching superstition as knowledge, reluctance to accept modern medicine, and people being coerced into exploitative organizations and cults who abuse their members.

Not all religions are wholly negative, many organizations do good works. I merely contend that those good works should be done by all, and irrespective of faith. People can also have faith, but they need to be grounded in reality.

I recently spoke with a Wiccan nurse. He believes in the irrational over the rational, and said so plainly to me in those words. I responded that if this were so, then you cannot practice medicine, because you will favor a spell over traditional medicine. And he said he would. This is an example of religion perverting the mind.

When I go to the doctor, I don't want a Wiccan casting spells on me instead of practicing medicine. This is just an example, not all Wiccans are like that. But the example is a religious person favoring irrational faith over rational science. This is unacceptable.

You can have faith, but you should never let it interfere with what the mind can prove is correct. Blind faith leads to crusades, holy wars, ignorance, hatred, and corruption of the mind.

[Craterus]

So, when a soldier covers up a live grenade with his body in order to save his buddies, how exactly is he seeking pleasure or happiness?

He would die happy knowing that he was about to do something good. Plus, it's far better to die honourably and satisfy that need we all seem to have for a legacy.

I'd like to think I'd do the exact same thing. And I'm as hedonistic as anyone.

Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.

By that logic, something has to have created God. Eventually, you have to concede that something must have come from nothing. May just as well be anti-matter (or however Big Bang Theory goes) as it is God.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Sorry, ATPG, but when someone starts talking about how we need not respect a person's religious beliefs, it rather sets me off. Not to mention staking out broad generalizations about which misrepresent religion as a concept, staking it as an inherent evil, as well as bashing whole other nations for their supposed intolerance when that person does not live there, quite gets me riled up as well. If he does not respect me, I will not respect him.

Oh I quite understand.

In this case, you were both wrong. That doesn't condemn either of you as bad people, just as human beings.



I understand why you reacted that way, and I'm not even religious. That doesn't matter, we should ALL respect each other, even when we disagree. I just don't want to see two of my fellow orgah's fighting rather than debating respectfully.

Let's keep things on a positive note, and we can continue this fascinating discussion!

[yesdachi]

To the topic…

If I follow a way of life that I think is positive and beneficial isn’t it my responsibility to pass that along to my children? What kind of a douche-bag parent would I be if I didn’t raise my children to follow a path that I follow and feel works, religious or not and with extremes aside. Until they are old enough to make up their own minds a parents job is to raise them to the best of our ability so when they do leave the nest they can be independent, positive contributors to society.

[Askthepizzaguy]

@yesdachi

Agreed. Of course you have to teach morals and values to children. It would be shameful not to.

As a non-theist raised by theistic parents, all I'm really asking for is that parents don't force the religion on them. Allow them to choose, and teach what you believe. Just don't punish a child for not reading the Bible, for example.

I turned out OK and I respect my parents' differing religious views. I also view religious people more positively, having been raised by two fine ones. If my children were religious, it wouldn't bother me.

My whole point is the harmful aspects of ANY kind of ideology, be it religion or politics or philosophy, whatever. Don't be militant, extremist, or force bad views on children. Let people decide for themselves, and allow your children to explore your viewpoint without making it an obligation.

Isn't that a good compromise for all, religious or not?

[Csargo]

That's what I've thought.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is this about religion or board censorship? Anyway, Kadagar - you have to build and support your points. Repeating the same one over and over simply won't do.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone. Not to hijack the thread, but would everyone be so kind as to indicate where they stand on this issue, included within their on-topic posts?

Example:

I'm non-theistic, non-religious. I favor allowing the child to learn about whatever religion they want, and also teaching my perspective, and not punishing them for disagreeing with me.

choices:

Non-religious
Religious
Unsure about religion,

and

Teach the child your views, punish if they disagree
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought
Never teach the child your views.

and if you have other options you'd like to present, go ahead. Personally I think that sharing your views but not forcing/coercing them to adhere to your views is the best method. I also think that being non-religious is better, too, but that's only my opinion.

[Viking]

Logic itself dictates what actions are immoral.

I'm not sure how it could lead us to an universal moral. First, one must define what's desired and what's not; and this is entirely subjective:

To kill an innocent person is irrational destruction, and causes unnecessary pain.

That is not going to prevent a logical person from doing it; logic is relative and need a frame of reference, just as velocity is meaningless without having anything to measure it with regards to.

Furthermore, what is really an innocent person? You'll find that these views vary a lot from situation to situation; he who considers himself innnocent might be considered guilty by others.

-

That said, I do absolutely agree that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion, just as you say. In fact, I'll say that the opposite view is outright absurd

I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone. Not to hijack the thread, but would everyone be so kind as to indicate where they stand on this issue, included within their on-topic posts?

Non-religious. I'm not sure what to answer to the second question; but no doubt, I have plenty of time to figure out.

[Caius]

Sometimes you, as a parent(please notice that I'm not one), one uses religion to explain certain things that exceed the natural or are hard to teach at their age(e.g. Grandmum made the bag and went to Heaven). It also works to delimitate whats good and what is not, and to prepare them to be teached about religion. Its not a mental abuse, its just teaching them what is good and bad for God (the Christhian one and the other Gods also). If you send them into a catholic school, they are teaching them a lot more of God, but in any point they are commiting mental abuse. Later, if that child doesn't believe in God, is his or her choice, and if in one moment of their lifes they believe in God, good. If they don't believe in God for the rest of their lifes, good also.

Maybe you should define what mental abuse is, if you are still in the forum.

[The Celtic Viking]

Programmed? Don't make me laugh. You act as though children are robots.

They're programmed by evolution and natural selection. Children who went against their parents warnings not to go too near the hungry lion got eaten. Those who listened survived to pass their genes on. That's what I meant when I said they're programmed to just listen - and they do.

Again, you imply that parents who teach their child religion should have their kids taken away from them and put in foster homes. So much for freedom.

Oh, yes, because it's not the religious parent indoctrinating the child into their religion who's taking away the child's freedom to choose for itself. It's I who's trying to take away their freedom to indoctrinate.

Perhaps you should try an anthropology or sociology course? Ever heard of animism? Shaminism? Religion simply cannot be defined as a belief in god/gods. Its a belief in the supernatural. Frankly, Atheists who are as sure of themselves as religious fanatics are just as bad.

If it's "a belief in the supernatural", then atheism still isn't a religion, because all atheism is is the lack of a belief in one specific supernatural thing - a god.

Hmm. Tell me, have you ever lived in America for an extended time? If not, then please don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.

I'm not basing this on what I believe, I base things on people who have grown up in America has told me. And not just 1, 2 or 20. A lot of people.

Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.

I'm not the one suggesting something came out of nothing. Please don't strawman my position.

I don't know what caused the big bang. I don't know, and no one does. To take that as an argument for god is an argument from ignorance.

To say that "everything needs a source" means that your god needs a source, and that source needs a source, and that source in turn also needs a source etc. To say "everything... oh, except god" is special pleading.

A better question, frankly, would be can you find a society which evolved with no belief in the supernatural.

That is a good question. Why are you asking me?

Sources? Census? Something?

Lets for simplicity's sake take the one supplied by Viking.

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf

According to that one, 77% are atheists. It's not the 85% I've heard elsewhere, but for my point to stand correct 77% is still enough.

Once again; unless you have lived in America for several years, in the various regions across America, I ask that don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.

How about having been told by people who have been born and grown up in various regions across America? Would that suffice?

How do you define what "morals" to teach children, then? How do you think morals originally were supported?

The first morals were simple, such as not to kill other humans, came through evolution and natural selection. As the tribes grew, the noticed that it worked better if they didn't steal etc., and morals like that grew up in that way. This is an extremely simplistic explanation.

Celtic and Makaikhaan-

Let's not disrespect one another. Please remember that although this is an emotionally charged issue, everyone here is worthy of respect and we can phrase our disagreements or our opinions in less sweeping generalities, or in disrespectful language.

I think this discussion is worth having, but such things could lock the thread.

Please be kind to one another.

I don't see how I disrespected anyone. It might be worth noting, though, that I don't see how Makaikhaan disrespected anyone either...

Sorry, ATPG, but when someone starts talking about how we need not respect a person's religious beliefs, it rather sets me off. Not to mention staking out broad generalizations about which misrepresent religion as a concept, staking it as an inherent evil, as well as bashing whole other nations for their supposed intolerance when that person does not live there, quite gets me riled up as well. If he does not respect me, I will not respect him.

I think I was careful enough when I said that you should not respect someone's religious beliefs to make clear that I still think you should show respect to the person holding the belief. I want you to know that I try to show you respect, but I hold no pretention to respect your beliefs.

If you have taken offense at anything that I've said, then I'm sorry, it was not my intention. However, I will continue to show no respect for your beliefs.

Thats's not correct. I believe it was around 20% Christians. The rest are not atheists; I saw an EU survey linked to some time back, and a lot were labelled as believing in some sort of "life force". (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf; p. 9, France appears to be the country with the most atheists in Europe)

Thank you for supplying that source. According to it, I'm only 8% off, which still lands me on 77% - which is enough for my claim. Remember: the definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in a god". In other words, those who said "I believe in a god" (because that was what they said, not that the believed in the christian god) are theists - the rest are thus atheists.

Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't believe in the supernatural: it just means that you don't believe in a god.

[rvg]

That said, I do absolutely agree that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion, just as you say. In fact, I'll say that the opposite view is outright absurd

Well, yes and no. Non-religious person can most certainly be moral, but if you look at the origins of morality, they are quite heavily rooted in religion. So yes, in the year 2008 it is entirely possible to be a 100% moral and decent human being without having a shred of belief in anything supernatural, but that is largely thanks to the countless centuries spent by the previous generations trembling before the wrath of the Almighty.

[Ronin]

Of course almost all animals have instincts. That doesn't mean however, that *all* of their behavior is instinctive and thus not subject to change. What instincts they *do* have however, are not subject to change. If you want to talk pure instinct, take a really primitive animal like a worker ant.

ok...then for example how do you explain the fact that human babies know to hold their breath when underwater?....any parent who has taken their child to a babies swimming class knows this happens....if it is not instinctive behavior what is it?

[rvg]

ok...then for example how do you explain the fact that human babies know to hold their breath when underwater?....any parent who has taken their child to a babies swimming class knows this happens....if it is not instinctive behavior what is it?

Disclaimer: What I'm about to say is merely a layman's speculation.

I would suspect that it's learned behavior. The child spends plenty of time submerged in a liquid while in utero, and during its last 3-4 weeks inside, the baby is most definitely alert and capable of learning. Just like they learn to suckle while they are still in utero.

[yesdachi]

I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone.

Happy to share my approach.

The wife and I are mildly religious (Christian) maybe a 4 on a 1-10, and we use big picture biblical references as an easy way to explain some things to our child. But for the most part we live by the golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do onto you, and leave the rest for our child to learn as it interests him. As he gets older and he asks more questions we answer to the best of our abilities, religious or otherwise.

The religious belief is strong, but our commitment to church is low, I believe there is a god and an afterlife but I don’t think Christianity has it all figured out, that’s the part that brings me down to a 4 but we figure that if we live a good life and follow the golden rule and the simple passage from the bible “the righteous will live by faith” society will accept us and heaven will open its doors wide when we arrive.

[Ronin]

Disclaimer: What I'm about to say is merely a layman's speculation.

I would suspect that it's learned behavior. The child spends plenty of time submerged in a liquid while in utero, and during its last 3-4 weeks inside, the baby is most definitely alert and capable of learning. Just like they learn to suckle while they are still in utero.

when in utero the fetus does not breath so it has really no way to learn how to hold it´s breath....in fact when a child is born it happens sometimes that they have fluid in their air passages, so that proves they aren´t holding their breath.

also I have found links that indicate that fetus start to suck their thumbs around the 17 weeks mark....far before the last 3-4 weeks of gestations

these behaviors are instinctive.....no matter how much you want to deny that fact for whatever strange reason I can´t even begin to guess.

I´m done with this discussion.....I´ll probably not gonna change your opinion but you hang on to that and I´ll hang on to facts.

[Craterus]

that is largely thanks to the countless centuries spent by the previous generations trembling before the wrath of the Almighty.

And what a splendid source to draw our morality from.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Non-religious
Religious
Unsure about religion,

and

Teach the child your views, punish if they disagree
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought
Never teach the child your views.

Bolded my choices. Although I do not believe that truly independent thought exists, and hasn't since the fall of man.

And what a splendid source to draw our morality from.

It is.

[rvg]

choices:

Non-religious
Religious
Unsure about religion,

and

Teach the child your views, punish if they disagree
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought
Never teach the child your views.

I'm a CEO (Christmas and Easter Only) Catholic. Do not care much about doctrines or customs. With that being said, I do seek God everywhere and in everything every day of my life, and I do find inspiration in contemporary saints like JP2 and Mother Theresa.

Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought is right along my line of thought.

[Strike For The South]

I'm a CEO (Christmas and Easter Only) Catholic. Do not care much about doctrines or customs. With that being said, I do seek God everywhere and in everything every day of my life, and I do find inspiration in contemporary saints like JP2 and Mother Theresa.

Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought is right along my line of thought.

agreed \. I would put myself as a 5 on christian scale. My wife will probably decide what we teach the kids b/c Im kinda meh.

[CountArach]

@yesdachi

Agreed. Of course you have to teach morals and values to children. It would be shameful not to.

As a non-theist raised by theistic parents, all I'm really asking for is that parents don't force the religion on them. Allow them to choose, and teach what you believe. Just don't punish a child for not reading the Bible, for example.

I turned out OK and I respect my parents' differing religious views. I also view religious people more positively, having been raised by two fine ones. If my children were religious, it wouldn't bother me.

My whole point is the harmful aspects of ANY kind of ideology, be it religion or politics or philosophy, whatever. Don't be militant, extremist, or force bad views on children. Let people decide for themselves, and allow your children to explore your viewpoint without making it an obligation.

Isn't that a good compromise for all, religious or not?

This is an excellent post ATPG, I concur with you on all points