It would be considered normal in my extended family's culture. However, there would be deference given to the hurting b-i-l if he expressed discomfort with her potential presence. By this, I mean that the family members hosting the wedding would discreetly ask him how he felt about them inviting the ex-wife and an escort. As for the other family members, they should not have a say in who is invited or not. If they are uncomfortable with ex sil being there, I suppose they could decline and tell host family why they declined. Generally speaking, I think it is wonderful that family members can maintain friendship bonds with exes, whether there are children involved or not.

My cell phone lives in my purse most of time. When I am at office, it sits on my desk ready to receive calls from family. At home, my purse sits on master bathroom countertop. In car, purse sits between two front seats.

The ring belongs to the person it was given to, the original poster's sister-in-law. What good would it do for original poster to get involved? If police are called, wouldn't the rightful owner, the sister-in-law, be the one to lodge the complaint against the jeweler? Wearing the ring would be the best way to honor the family's history. I agree with other posters who suspect that s-i-l exchanged it for something she preferred or sold it. Either way, it was her property to deal with as she wished. I do wonder, though, why she felt should could not be honest with her family about the disposition of the ring.

Many humans understandably have a fear of the unknown and unknowable and resort to supernatural myths to explain and placate fears brought about by uncertainty. No, religious beliefs will not go away although they may evolve and/or dwindle as our scientific knowledge advances.

Interesting. Religion was all around me but it never "took." Situation was pretty much same for my husband. Like your son, I found Santa every bit as unlikely as deities but pretended to believe as young child to prevent disappointment in certain relatives. With my own children, we played the "Santa game" at Christmas.

Jean, that must have been a harrowing ordeal. I am glad everything turned out ok.

No and no.

I am a "natural" lifelong atheist, i.e., some people are born unable to give themselves over to magical thinking. I am not offended by Christmas lights; we have a long standing tradition of annual Christmas light viewing pilgrimages. Although I do less and less each year, in past years I tried my best to put up elaborate light displays that would elicit twinkles in the eyes of children. I think it is a waste of energy to nitpick about which holiday belongs to whom. Also I agree with whatever poster stated that she has experienced more Christians carrying on about war on Christmas than nonbelievers. Like other posters, I agree that decidedly religious symbols should not be on public land or paid for from public coffer since our government is not supposes to favor one religion over another.

I am answering this without reading other responses. My take on it is that agnostics feel that the existence of deities is unknowable whereas atheists advocate that one can draw a tentative evidence-based conclusion that deities most likely do not exist. My guess is that some agnostics believe in fuzzy nebulous higher powers while others do not. Personally the most common self-proclaimed "agnostics" I have encountered are those who are questioning and re-evaluating their long-held religiuos beliefs, but my sample is biased because of the cultural dominance of religion in my area.

I welcomes any positive thoughts or energy, prayer included, especially when I am in a hurting place. I do not know if karma is considered a spiritual belief. I do not believe in any system of future rewards and punishments. However, I do believe that if one has a developed conscious, he will suffer internally for his wrongdoings. Does that make sense? Atheist means nothing more or nothing less than a viewpoint that deities probably do not exist. It does not speak to beliefs in other supernatural beings or happenings.

Living in the Bible Belt, the question "where do you go church" is akin to "hello, how are in you" in other less religious locales. I truly do not care what another person's religious beliefs are as long as they do not attempt to proselytize me and as long as their faith does no harm to others. Maybe your grandfather insisted his beliefs were private because he did not wish to be target of proselytizers. Being a nonbeliever surrounded by believers can be lonely and sometimes intimidating or just downright annoying if they are the aggressive proselytizing type. I do not believe that religions or any other philosophies or schools of thought should be automatically respected and be above scrutiny.

I am firmly convinced that there is no consciousness that is separate from physical body although I concede that there certainly are happenings that are unexplainable currently with our limited knowledge of physics. I have seen no objective evidence of reincarnation or soul-recycling. I do not find that depressing. The world makes more sense to me without a deity belief. Not believing in gods or goddesses does not detract from the awe, mystery and beauty of the universe or from humanity's capacity for both terrible evil and incredible kindness.

I do not have a problem with it. If the child had identified with a harsh, sin-focused punitive proselytizing faith, I would have been mildly disappointed but kept my trap shut. As it was, I facilitated my kid's interest in religion by driving him to temple and to related events. Said child grew away from that particular faith as he grew up. The faith had a strong emphasis on participating in social and political justice fights so I'm not sure how much of it was truly religious for child and how much was a bonding experience over shared interests. I'm going for the latter because child no longer attends religious services of any kind.

I disagree that people need to have particular anatomical attributes to wear certain types of clothing. My upper arms do not stop moving when I do, but I refuse to give up my tank tops.

Miniskirts are appropriate as long as your derriere hangs no lower than your kneecap.

Here's a new rule: do not post where undercurrent is strong.

We have them in every room of house except bathrooms, dining room and book nook. We also have one in upstairs hallway, in a couple of large closets and in garage.

My only issue with ignore feature is that it makes conversation rather disjointed.

I was puzzled when I read this thread too. It seemed to have two major themes, nonparents giving advice and publicly declaring a board exit, so I responded to both. Usually I only read first post before responding, but this time I scanned entire thread. Like you, I am definitely not in loop, but that's ok. I like it that way most of time.

I'd like to say I start day out by gathering fresh wholesome from my garden, preparing wholesome meal for family, tidying the home to a lived in but clean look, settling in to study higher math or to read enlightening literature that challenges the intellect of both homeschooled and after-schooled students but here is what truly goes down: Yogurt or cold cereal often in a foam bowl, kids off to classes, race to work for hours, pick up takeout on way home sometimes, clear a path in the common areas, do bare absolute minimum to keep common area passable, and wind down with family time, internet or book before starting cycle all over again. When I homeschooled, we were a tad closer to my delusional ideal.

Based upon your description of her, she sounds anything but impressionable. Thus, I would not worry about having unduly influenced her decision one way or the other.

Meh. Those things happen. Emotions can get out of hand here sometimes. People get miffed, delete posts, declare that they will take board break or delete account. When the ruffled feathers are smoothed, they're back in ten second, minutes, days, maybe months until the next blowup that they get too emotionally invested in. Most people learn which type of threads to avoid because it pushes their own personal buttons. At one time, swan songs were supposedly against board rules. Not sure if that was ever an official policy punishable by lashing with noodle. Someone here compared it to the paraphrased film/novel line, "The first rule of Fight Club is to not mention Fight Club."

Generally I do not mind childless people offering parental advice as long as it is solicited. Parenting is largely skilled interpersonal relationshipping, and some people simply are naturally more gifted in that area.

Every generation since the dawn of time probably has claimed that the younger generation is more insolent than the elder one. Didn't Socrates or Aristotle make this same claim? No, I do not believe that the the whippersnappers of today are less respectful than those of yesteryear. Now if I can just remember my own words the next time I encounter a smart alec kid ..... :laugh:

Yes, all of them narrated play when they were younger.