To ask my brother and family not to go to church when we visit

[Trifle]

I plan on visiting my brother, sil and their 2 children for a weekend in September with my 2 ds's. All the children get on fabulously and really enjoy eachothers company although, due to distance apart, we dont meet up as often as is liked.

My brother and sil are deeply religious to the point of fanaticism. They read the bible every day, pray religiously, attend church at least 2 if not 3 times a week, sometimes twice on a sunday (obviously the message doesnt get through first time).

Now, if we visit at the weekend and stay overnight, would IBU to ask them not to go to church on a sunday morning as the whole thing takes about 3 hours and we just end up hanging around waiting for them to come back. This defeats the object of the whole trip if we are there to see them plus I also think it is rude to abandon your guests.

For what it's worth, YABU. Go in the week instead at half term if Sundays bother you so much. I know it's hard to understand but if they don't go to church they won't feel right all day. Or why not go along with them - could be educational in a "hey look how other peope live" way.

I understand your frustration in finding that your brothers faith comes between you.

You should go with him to church and if you must miss it cook the Sunday roast instead.

YABVU. I am sure you can find something to do for 3 hours. Make them a nice lunch for when they get back. Or rent a couple of movies.

I think if there is more than one service on a Sunday I would be hurt if they couldn´t attend just one whilst I was there tbh.

Well if they were going to two services on the Sunday, that's the best part of Sunday gone - I just wouldn't bother going.

That would be a shame for the cousins who all get on.

While Christian fanatics are on the table, does anyone know what the Christian problem is with World Book Day? Two local nutter families very noisily and aggressively returned the £1 book tokens to school, citing "religious principles". No one has any idea what these principles are, and they aren't telling.

I have refused the free fruit scheme (the first ever one that was payed for by the national lotery) on ground I did not want my children to benefit from something that came from gambling money. Does not mean that mmy Dcs had to live without fruit but that they had fruit payed by us. Might be something similar with world book day?

In any case, them refusing the free vauchers has no bearing on you so why being upset about it?

"I have refused the free fruit scheme (the first ever one that was payed for by the national lotery) on ground I did not want my children to benefit from something that came from gambling money."

I presume you don't take your children to anything funded by the Arts Council either, as the lottery is one of their main sources of funding.

No I do not but so far only because I had no idea that the art council did exist at all.

"No I do not "

Never taken them to a non-West End theatre? Never taken them to an art gallery? Never taken them to a museum (not Arts Council, but equally lottery funded)? Have you checked if you local library has had lottery funding (check here)? Are you sure your local hospital isn't holding raffles or accepting lottery funding? A lot of respite care is funded out of the New Opportunities fund, so you probably need to make sure people with sick children know that. My nephew has leukaemia and the charity that supports my sister-in-law in staying with him in hospital holds a raffle: would you turn that assistance down?

I mean, you wouldn't want to "benefit from something that came from gambling money." would you?

If I am not aware that it is lottery funded I am not at fault, If I am aware I just avoid it so what? I am not asking anyone to do the same.

Why would I need to make sure people with sick children know that? It is MY decision, I am asking no one to do the same. You asked a question about why would someone refuse something on religious ground I answered to the best of my knoledge. If you are not happy with it it is really not my problem!

I am very sorry for your nephew and all your family though for having to go through that.

Gorionine - what's so bad about using gambling money to fund good causes?

Nothing if you agree with gambeling in the first place. A lot if like me you think gambling brings at least as much misery to people who gamble as it might help others.

I wish I had never answered the question in the first place now though.

"A lot if like me you think gambling brings at least as much misery to people who gamble as it might help others."

So, explain this to us. Your argument is that the money is tainted by coming from gambling, and therefore a 'fruit of the poison tree' argument comes in. How does refusing to take the profits help anyone, other than your self-regard? Are you suggesting that telling your daughter to reject an apple will someone influence policy on the national lottery?

Your argument that if you don't know it's lottery funded you're not concerned is pure sophistry. I've just told you: most theatres, libraries and hospitals accept money from either the national lottery or more localised lotteries, as does every school PTA ever (those that don't run raffles run "100 clubs" and the like). A significant number of CT scanners are lottery funded, as are most hospices, a lot of respite care and of course a huge number of things like community ambulances. Almost every air ambulance in the country is funded by charity, and I cannot imagine there are any of those that do not operate raffles as a means to raise money. Right, now you know. So, if you're involved in a car crash, will you wave away the helicopter? Are you going to refuse to allow the school to take your child to museums, theatres and libraries? When your school PTA has a raffle to stock the playground with play apparatus, will you be stopped your child using it?

Because talk, and refusing apples, is cheap; if you want to be consistent rather than making a cheap point (sending back £1 book tokens may well, as you say, be part of the same thing) you're going to need to avoid an awful, awful lot of stuff.

No I am not going to explain anything to you.

Gorionne - Would you class those who buy a National Lottery ticket as 'gamblers' - and do you think it brings misery to them?

Tokyonambu, I think I love you.

"Would you class those who buy a National Lottery ticket as 'gamblers' - and do you think it brings misery to them?"

Actually, Gorionne is right. The national lottery is gambling, and in some forms - especially the scratch-card games - it does bring misery. One of the characteristics of deprivation is that people do not feel they have the power to alter their lives through their ordinary life, so an escape route like "winning the lottery" (or "winning X factor" or "marrying a footballer") is their only hope, while less deprived people work more steadily at improving their lot. People in deep poverty pour irrational amounts of money into the lottery.

I disapprove of the national lottery, I've never bought a ticket, and I have exchanged annoyed letters with schools and playgroups to try to find alternatives to raffles. I've also made formal representations about planning consent for bookmakers. Gambling is bad, although I find the way in which odds-setting is a strong predictor of risk professionally interesting, which is why I have a tiny balance in my Corals and Ladbrokes accounts for exploring political prediction. And with my maths hat on, I'd point out that the lottery also offers staggeringly bad value odds.

But refusing to accept the proceeds of the lottery is inane. It's entirely self-regarding, does nothing to prevent the spread of gambling and, like other gestures, does nothing beyond making a weak point.

And, of course, rather like people who talk about the evils of debt usually manage to rationalise mortgages as somehow different, people who talk about the evils of gambling rarely refuse to take out life assurance. There are Christians who do, of course, but they're not common. Life assurance is just a bet on dying.

Principles are principles. If you refuse to take part in something when it's no skin off your nose, but somehow rationalise it when it would be an inconvenience, it's not a principle.

How is my stand different to let's say boycott Nestle? why is one ok and not the other?

BTW When did I say anything that could make you think I rationalise for my convenient? I do not "rationalise" when it is an inconvenence" so have got a clear conscience in that respect. We(family)do not take any insurance except for the car as it would be illegal not to. We do not have a morgage and rent a house because of the interest and we make sure we do not use the amount of money that is "interest" from our bank account either.

You won't see me on this thread anymore.

"How is my stand different to let's say boycott Nestle?"

Because that deprives Nestle of money. Refusing to accept the output of the lottery does not deprive the lottery of money.

Oh, and by the way, no-one forcing you to run a car if it involves insurance you disapprove of.

Tokyo

You talk a lot of sense.

Go Friday night, stay Saturday night as well then go home when they head off to church on Sunday. Isn;t it that simple?

"We do not have a morgage and rent a house because of the interest"

Does that mean you have to confirm that your landlord doesn't have a mortgage? Otherwise you're just paying someone else to commit a sin on your behalf.