by phdinparenting on September 1, 2010
I certainly don’t wear her everyday anymore, but on a challenging hike through rough terrain, she still gets to ride. Our go to carrier at this point for longer walks is the Catbird Baby Pikkolo.



(Yes, I’m a bit red in that last picture. That was quite a climb with an extra 37 pounds on my back.)
Photo credit: Our friend Derek who joined us on the hike
Disclosure: Catbird Baby is an advertiser on my site. However, this is not a paid post and I have owned this carrier (which I paid for myself) since before I even started this blog.
by phdinparenting on August 30, 2010
As an agnostic humanist and mostly probably atheist, there are a lot of things about religion that I think are worth questioning. If there is anything I believe firmly, it is that everything is worth questioning, including religious beliefs and practices. That doesn’t mean that I dismiss all religions or religious people as being worthless and wrong. But it does mean that I judge individuals by their own beliefs, actions and values and not by those of others who carry the same label.
In in the introduction to his book Parenting Beyond Belief, Dale McGowan (who also blogs at The Meming of Life) writes about religious and secular co-existence. His clear explanation is today’s quotable:
In the Preface to this book, I said that I had “set religion aside.” Actually, that’s a bit like saying someone who rides a bike to worh has set traffic aside. I’m still in it, still surrounded by it, and I always will be. Religion, for better or worse, is likely to be a permanent part of the human world. Our job as secular parents is not to work toward a religion-free world, but to help our kids learn to happily and peacefully co-exist with religion.
Co-existence does not mean silent acceptance of all consequences of religious belief. To the contrary: Silence and inaction in the face of dangerous immorality is itself immoral. We have to engage religious people and institutions in just the way we wish to be engaged ourselves, as co-participants in the world. We should reasonably but loudly protest the intolerance, ignorance, and fear that is born of religion while at the same time reasonably and loudly applauding religious people and instititutions whenever charity, tolerance, empathy, honesty, and any of our other shared values are in evidence. An important part of this is recognizing that not all expressions of religion and not all religious people are alike. Be sure to help kids recognize that the loudest, most ignorant, and most intolerant religious adherents – whether raving radical muslim clerics or raving radical Christian televangelists – do not represent all believers, nor even the majority. Though institutional religion itself is an unfortunate thing, the majority of individual believers are decent and thoughtful people with whom we have more in common than not. Saying that to yourself once in a while, and to your kids, can move the dialogue further forward than just about anything else.
The vision we should encourage in our children is not a world free of religion but one in which no idea or action is granted immunity from discussion and critique – including, of course, our own.
I thought this quote was particularly pertinent in light of all of the recent discussion about Mosques at Ground Zero. I also think it is relevant when we are condemning stoning someone to death, circumcising infants, or teaching children that evolution is “just a theory.” These acts, which could all be considered immoral (although not equally so) and which are all done in the name of religion, are all worth condemning. But it doesn’t mean that every Muslim, Jew or Christian is an immoral person or is guilty of immoral acts. Just as not everyone who worships or practices a religion is a terrorist. In fact, I think a Mosque at Ground Zero would create a unique opportunity for a group of Muslims to condemn and distance themselves from the horrible acts committed on 9/11 while promoting greater tolerance and co-existence with other religious cultures.
I believe that religion is dangerous when its followers, either by force or by choice, do not question the beliefs and rules that are handed down. Our world is evolving and religion, if it is to survive, needs to evolve too. That will only happen if people with different beliefs can sit together and learn about each others’ beliefs and remain open to a critique of their own beliefs. It will only happen if we can learn to see individuals as individuals, instead of assuming the best or the worst about someone, based on the actions of the best of worst people of the same faith.
For that reason, I am very supportive of the Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum that was introduced in the Province of Quebec a few years ago and that replaces the previous option of either Protestant or Catholic moral and religious education. The new curriculum is a non-confessional program that is used all the way through elementary school and high school and that allows children to:
- acquire or consolidate, if applicable, an understanding of how all individuals are equal in terms of right and dignity
- learn to reflect on issues
- explore, depending on his/her age, different ways in which Québec’s religious heritage is present in his/her immediate or broader environment
- learn about elements of other religious traditions present in Québec
- grow and develop in a society in which different values and beliefs coexist
Children that have been through that program, whether Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, Atheist or Buddhist, Pagan or Kuksu, or just entirely unsure, should be more prepared for peaceful co-existence than those who only learn one world view.
Parents who want to teach their children about co-existence can:
I’m sure there is more that they can do. I’m sure that there is more that they should do. But mostly, I think that people need to refrain from making assumptions about someone’s character or motives based on their religion alone. If we treated people like people and modeled that for our children rather than spewing intolerant remarks at the dinner table or on the evening news, that would be a step in the right direction.
by phdinparenting on August 26, 2010
I read a lot of books, newspapers, blogs, and journal articles. Sometimes I have the time and inclination to write a book review or a detailed deconstruction of something I have read. Sometimes I don’t. But that doesn’t mean the other things I read are not worth discussing. Many of them are very worthy of discussion. So I’ve decided to start a series called quotable, where I will grab a paragraph from something I’ve read and initiate a discussion on it. I hope you’ll enjoy it.
Today’s quotable is from the third edition of The Politics of Breastfeeding: When Breasts are Bad for Business by Gabrielle Palmer (if you want to learn more about the book, you can read the review of it by Elita from Blacktating). This book was first written in 1998 and was most recently updated in 2009.
From Chapter 1: Why Breastfeeding is Political in the section who profits?:
A doctor who invents a new artificial milk may get a royalty on each batch sold. Those who support breastfeeding and see a conflict of interest in industry links will rarely get as rich as those who have close ties with a powerful company. Our current economic structure does not encourage the promotion of products or systems which provide long-term benefit and do not make rapid financial profits. As with so many of the biological solutions to the ecological devastation of the planet, the money makers would not benefit immediately if we adopted them, though in the long term the world and all society would be wealthier.
…
One sad fact of the 20th century was that the more contact mothers had with health workers, the less they breastfed. Industrial society is founded on technological solutions and indifference to the costs of primary extraction; it is often easier, and more lucrative, to work out a stopgap way of alleviating a problem than to discover why it occured in the first place. Now that researchers have revealed the risks of not breastfeeding, there is no excuse for the medical and commercial promoters of substitute milks to continue their practices, but many are so caught up in the whirlwind of career progress and profit-seeking that they seem unable to stop to review the damage they do.
…
If society were organised so that the true baby milk manufacturers, women, earned the rewards they deserve for their production, the baby food industry would dwindle and much of the poverty that causes infant disease and death would disappear.
Whether we are talking about breastfeeding instead of manufactured artificial baby milk, fresh food from the garden instead of processed food full of all kinds of unhealthy ingredients, playing outside in the natural environment versus stocking up on plastic toys, the people manufacturing the unhealthier alternative have a vested interest ($$$) in convincing you to buy it. In a lot of cases, our own lack of confidence, love of shopping, and search for convenience means that we reach for the product on the shelf instead of considering the better (healthier, more environmentally friendly) option.
Is there any hope for us humans? Can we change?
by phdinparenting on August 25, 2010