People of faith, with whom would you trust your children?

Atheist.

I actually do not worry about religious inclination in such a case. It will be just baby sitting, I wll not be giving up my Son for adoption! I will ask him not to disscuss religion with my child at the most , but I can take care of it upto some extent even if he did.

What is the worst thing that atheist philosophy can do if otherwise the person is moral?

I don't have any children but since we're being hypothetical, I'll answer anyway.

I wouldn't have a problem leaving them with either one of them! I would probably choose the one the children like better or the one I feel is more experienced when it comes to looking after children.

I'm sure Atheists can make excellent babysitters! I believe a lot of them are what you would call "good" people.

I also believe, that God is able to change people and transform lives. I've seen it happen many times, not least in my own life. So I wouldn't worry so much about somebody's past as long as I knew, the person is serious about his/her faith.

Besides all that, I believe that God is well able to keep my children out of harms way! So regardless of who was babysitting, I would ask God to watch over my children and to protect them.

*Shrugging my furry shoulders* I believe in not judging a person by their religion, but their deeds. Since number two has a criminal record (even though they have behaved since), that leaves them out.

Now were you to ask the same about two people with spotless records, one atheist and one born again, my answer would still be number one.

While I and my pups are neither atheist or christian, I'd choose the atheist simply because that would be the one less likely to try to convert and preach to my kids. Even if the atheist did share their views, those are views of logic and reason, not blind faith. We are spiritualists who follow intelligent facts. Not the teachings written by humans with an agenda during a time when people thought the world was flat...

Difficult question. I would have to say I would choose person 2. You shouldn't judge a person by their past if you have seen a great change in them. Sometimes I know it doesn't always work that way. If I had the choice, I would choose a relative or not go, but if I had to choose I would pick a born again christian over a non believer. That's not to say anything against non believers, its just, I wouldn't want my baby around different spirits and if a body is born again and has the Holy Ghost, I know the spirits wouldn't be so bad. But I seriously would just not go because neither are good choices!

I would pick #1, because as a bisexual who is going to be having children with another woman AND someone who is going to be raising those children Wiccan, I would be very very very reluctant to let a born again Christian around my children, much less one with such a reccord. I'm not saying that I never want my kids around born again Christians, I just want to know the people first and know that there is no way in hell they are going to be mean, rude, untruthful, homophobic, anti-witch, or disrespectful to them.

The athiest is just plain more qualified to babysit anyway, so why risk exposing my kids to someone who is liable to hate them AND has a history of violence? No way dude. I would assume that a babysitter with great refrences would be respectful to all children and I have very very rarely met any athiests who push thier beliefs on others. So it is an easy choice for me.

Person #1. I would be hiring the babysitter to be responsible, not religious.

I don't think a whole religion lesson will be taught while I am gone. I'm not letting my most precious person on earth, at such a young age, go anywhere near the convicted who has, in the past, been a danger to others. The atheist is probably more dangerous to her/himself than others.

cool question. and funny to see how people pick number 2 with the argument that we should not judge a person on the past. Yet, at the same time they judge number 1 for being an atheist.

my answer: no idea. i have no kids. if i had them, i would probably leave them with the person that my kid would feel most comfortable with. And to me that would not be based on references, history or whatever. Just the one of the two that made me feel the best, the one that feels along with my kids feelings.

i would never leave my kid to a stranger, so i would have met them, therefor my choice would simply be made on feelings.

Are you kidding me? The atheist, hands-down.

I can't believe anyone would say it's a "Christian view" that it's better to leave your children in the hands of a convicted violent criminal rather than a moral atheist. That just blows my mind.

It's true that people can change, but why in the world would you gamble with your children when you don't have to? If that criminal Christian laid a hand on my child, I'd be the one in jail.

To be perfectly honest, When Comes to my children, I would trust the Atheist. I understand that #2 should have a second chance at life, but I do not want that chance to be with the most precious gift God gave me. If this is wrong then I am sorry. I am a Christian, not God himself. I sin, make morally wrong decisions.

why do you ask such questions?

I wouldn't judge the person based on their philosophical or religious beliefs when it comes down to the care and safety of my children. The criteria here is erroneous for the task.

If you want someone to care for your children as a babysitter, it has to do with trust in the person's capability, reliability, skill, past history, etc., with children that determines whether they are up to the vitally important task of leaving your child's well-being in their hands. The issue is... which person do you personally know and trust as a quality, reliable, nurturing human being and are up to the task at hand.

Your question forces a choice based on the criteria of beliefs, which in this case, is entirely not appropriate for the task. If a parent makes a decision based on this criteria, then their ability as a parent to discern what is important and what is not is highly in question.