I’ve long thought that indoctrinating small children with religion is not without its problems, as religion seems to me something that one should decide on for themselves. For something that can alter one’s life so much, it seems wrong to me to teach kids this way or that way from an early age. If we can get them to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, we can get them to believe in anything; to use the innocence, and frankly, gullibility of children to put them on whatever path the parent (or whoever) has chosen seems rather unfair to me.

But of course, I can certainly understand why this happens, particularly now that I’m in the position of the parent. You have to tell your kid(s) something, because rest assured, if you don’t, someone else will. But the big question is, what do we tell him? I consider myself Buddhist, but due to my feelings on the issue, I don’t really want to just say “this is it, kid; this is the way to be.” Buddhism is the choice I’ve made for myself, but I’m really not sure it’s my place to make that choice for him, nutty as that may sound coming from a parent. I’d introduce him to a variety of religions and let him decide, but at his age, I think all that would accomplish would be to confuse him – not to mention, I’d say most people I know would disown me for doing such a thing. While I may not agree with all of them, I can’t completely ignore social norms. I’m not sure how well it would go over in first grade if he went in and said that he’d decided to be Muslim or Hindu; we do, after all, live along the Bible Belt.

Then again, perhaps I’m agonizing over this for nothing. Perhaps, regardless of what we tell him, he’ll find his own way in his own time. I was raised in a Christian family, and I’m certainly not a Christian now. On the other hand, I’ve known people who were raised following one religious path or another, and it caused them endless trouble as an adult as they struggled to figure out their own beliefs and thoughts.

So, here I am. I’m in the position of needing to give guidance on this issue, but unsure as to what guidance I should give. Any ideas on this one?

The thing is, though, part of me wonders: are these games a little disrespectful? Is it disrespectful to take something as serious as World War II, in which millions died, and to turn it into a game? While they’re quickly disappearing, there are still World War II veterans alive; what do they think about a bunch of 20-somethings playing soldier in games that are becoming increasingly realistic?² Do they take offense? Do they think the war should be seen for what it really was, something terrible and something that should be avoided if at all possible, and that making a game out of it is crossing a line that shouldn’t be crossed?

These questions could be posed to veterans of other wars, as well; the Vietnam War is serving as the base for more and more games (although I’ve not played any). It’s obviously even closer to us than World War II; how do ‘Nam vets feel about games being based on their experiences?

While it’s hard (or perhaps impossible) to find where the line is exactly, there seems to be a line between what we’re allowed to base entertainment on, and what we aren’t allowed to touch – yet. If Russia were to declare war on America tomorrow and land two million troops on the west coast, would I expect a game based on the event to be released 6 months later? No. The event would still be too close to Americans, too real. But 30 years down the road? 50? Sure, why not. It’d just be another war to make a game out of. Strange.

1. Admittedly, Return to Castle Wolfenstein has a lot of fiction in it – zombies, monster-like robots, etc. – but the base setting is World War 2.
2. As realistic as games can be, anyway. I’m well aware that playing a game will not teach me what it’s like to be cold in a bunker or to see my friends blown up. By “realistic”, I suppose I mostly mean visually realistic.

Via Bookmooch*, I’ve gotten quite a few history books over the past couple of months. I’ve noticed something in them, and after thinking about it, I’ve noticed this same thing in many other books I’ve bought second-hand: they have a lot of underlining in them, but only in the beginning. At first, the underlining is quite often. Then, it starts to lessen, and then it disappears completely. While I don’t have the exact figures, I’d say the underlining generally disappears at around page 50-75.

Does this mean that…

A) A lot of people who underline in books rarely actually finish reading the books?

or -

B) A lot of people who underline in books only underline for a while, then realize that it’s a pointless activity, and so stop?

Those of you who have bought second-hand books which have underlining in them, have you seen a similar trend? Does the underlining trickle off after a short while, or do you have some books in which the person has underlined throughout?

And, while on the topic – how can people stand to underline in books? I can’t do it. Can’t. I won’t even do it in my university textbooks. I tried using a highlighter in one of my American history textbooks once, and just couldn’t bring myself to do it beyond a page or two. I ended up keeping a notebook alongside my textbook to take notes in, rather than highlight / underline.

* Ah, Bookmooch, how I love thee. You’ve helped me rid myself of unwanted books, as well as acquire books I wanted badly. Alas – your search feature still sucks.