Sorry, I assumed all people would know that church, synagogue or mosque is where most people receive their religious training, especially true for children.
Of course I know that. In my experience, church-goers are typically church members, attend bible classes or catechism classes or other religious training, receive sacraments where applicable, contribute to the church and to food drives, participate in pot-luck suppers, bingo games, or whatever else goes on at the church. But I was not looking at those activities. I read "church-going" as exactly what it says--attending church actively and regularly. From Webster:
Main Entry: church·go·er: one who habitually attends church
I apparently misunderstood your point of belatedly introducing "religious training" into the discussion. I thought by doing so you must be suggesting that I had substituted religious training for attending church services and that that substitution had somehow gotten me off on the wrong track. Since that's not what you had in mind, I am lost as to the relevance of a focus on religious training to this issue.
Do you think I said not going to church CAUSES children to misbehave?
You said that children from non-church-going families are MORE LIKELY TO misbehave. The clear and obvious implication is that the misbehavior is a function of the absence of church-going. Otherwise, there's no point to "church-going" in that statement.
Do you think I said not going to church CAUSES parents to abuse and neglect their children, or become druggies?
You spoke to non-church-going, not to abuse and neglect. Abuse and neglect was an afterthought. Clearly from your afterthought you think that abuse and neglect is more likely in non-church-going families, which is no less a slander of seculars than your original statement.
Unless you are attributing all that abuse and neglect to the non-church-going Christians rather than to the seculars... <g>
|
