Fundamentalism and Children

[Ichneumonwasp]

Nice body-swerve.

Declaring something a false dichotomy does not make it so.

A real example of a false dichotomy would be classifying fear into two different types depending upon whether it is fear of God or of Freddy Kruger. (Mind you, there are real pictures of Freddy Kruger.)

So, well done.

Let's get this straight, you regard treating a child in such a way as to deprive them of sleep to be good and proper parental care.

Is that what you are saying?


Oh come on. The false dichotomy is between good and proper parental care and child abuse. There are many steps between those opposites. Some people yell at their kids in the supermarket. I don't think that is child abuse, but I certainly think it is bad parenting in most cases.

If I chastise my child because she tells a lie and she goes to her room and cries it out and doesn't sleep for two nights because she has lost my approval do you wish to call me a child abuser? My eldest, when we returned from a trip to Alaska this summer, had a meltdown because of the way I answered one of her questions. She was genuinely distressed and stalked off for almost an hour. Does that make me a child abuser? You seem to be focusing on the effects, the consequences. If the lie has no effect on the child in question, no untoward conequences, no sleepless nights, then is it not abuse?

In the example you have given a child is put out for a few nights because s/he fears that s/he has done something wrong. If the carrot and stick story helps him/her to a better moral outlook then, no, I would not call that child abuse. It is, in fact, good and proper parenting for many people. I don't approve of that style of parenting, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this constitutes child abuse.

As someone who regularly sees adults who were abused as children and now express that previous abuse in physical manifestations I am a bit disgusted that anyone would equate the teaching of religion, however stupid I may find the ideas, with real abuse of children.

[articulett]

The public does pay the taxes that religions don't pay on profit making ventures... and the public has a right to protect the children that are it's future. How are laws requiring bike helmets or seat belts different than ones requiring that you not threaten children with eternal torture or tell them scientific falsehoods disguised as truths that MUST be believed to be saved? Which cause more harm? Aren't the laws and fines more rarely enforced, but more about protecting children and educating parents. The same is true with vaccination laws. I think schools should be free to speak of religions as "beliefs" that people treat as "truths", but that are not validated by science. I think it's important for kids to know that people have been asserting these truths for eons and none of verifiable and there are many many different types. But mostly I think that anything that gets anyone to talk about what faith and religion is actually good for if anything and if any human really has access to divine truths is a very important topic.

I think that religions deserve no more protections than cults, racist practices, propaganda-- basic free inquiry. I think that children scared into trusting people who are lying and manipulating them is wrong and that a lot of ugliness hides underneath this "mustn't question faith" meme. I don't know if I'd advocate fines, but I really am interested in what those who hear gayak's suggestions as fascist are afraid of. You don't really think that parents will be jailed or put in leg irons do you? Do you expect the punishment to be worse than those who don't put their kids in car safety seats? Do you agree the government has a right to make laws about that? If you knew that much more religious suffering by children would happen due to your "let's not talk about it" approach, would you still be so appalled? Do children deserve to be protected from mental abuse? Is fining the fundies worse than the stupidity, bigotry, fear, and ignorance they inflict en masse on innocent children many of whom will grow up and inflict it en masse on others-- especially in a day and age when we can know real and valuable factual truths about so many things. Is it so wrong to mandate that beliefs be taught as beliefs--rather than higher truths.

Faith is not a good way to know the truth. Any way that message spreads is good as far as I'm concerned. Protecting religion from scrutiny because some are fine or cause no harm or whatever does not forward that goal. Do we let parents teach their kids to litter because the parents think it's fine? We have mottos ("give a hoot, don't pollute) and fines and education and assorted tools to help spread the message. I don't think Gayak or anyone else is calling for more than that, and I don't think anyone would be successful if they were anyhow. All civil rights are won with these sort of tools... and "freedom of religion" for children is one worth fighting for. Ask yourself this--are the laws regarding child safety seats worth the lesser freedom for parents? Are they a big imposition? To they help or harm society as a whole. Who pays and cares for injured and brain damaged kids when parents can't? When I hear the conversation, it sounds to me that gayak is talking about laws akin to safety seats or bike helmets for religious abuses and people are reacting as though he said imprison parents who take their kids to church. And I think they are doing this to avoid discussing whether religion should be given the same scrutiny as any other group or notions or dogmas that one might inflict upon children. We would probably all agree that it's wrong to raise your kids to be racists or bigots, but would we really demonize anyone who tried to brainstorm ways to stop such practices and educate the public? I wouldn't.

And how can you justify stepping in when physical harm is inflicted on a child if the parents believe their kids salvation depends on that harm. How can you say a blood transfusion is okay if it means that the kid and parents believe the kid will go to hell? How can you say the child rape is wrong when their god mandated it? How can you say exorcising kids is wrong when parents think it's the only way to cure their kids illness? Most people seem to give faith too much protection and freedom from scrutiny as far as I can tell. I was fined because my dogs got out and were running around the neighborhood. I think that causes a lot less harm then threatening kids with hell. But I agree that for the safety of the dogs and the community that such laws are beneficial to the society as a whole.

If religious protection laws were akin to child labor laws--which aren't really about physical abuse--but about adults taking advantage of those in their care, would you still have a problem with it? How are the two different. How and why should the laws protecting kids in these cases be different? Why do we have child labor laws?

[Ichneumonwasp]

One deals with physical harm and the other with your opinion of mental harm. The government has a vested interest in protecting children from physical harm. I do not want them telling me or anyone else what stories I should or should not tell.

The government steps into the free speech issue when it may result in physical harm, not when it results in irritation, disgust, or offense.

I don't like the effects of religion in many situations either. But I will fight to protect other's right to practice their religion.

[Slimething]

Do you want an answer? As we've seen, it's doubtful the quote is accurate, but certainly George H.W. Bush does not have a high opinion of atheism. It's reasonable to assume his parents probably influenced him significantly in that regard.

What's your point?

Again, you must be joking. Whether or not you believe the statement was made, it was never denied despite repeated opportunities. One can only surmise that Elder Bush did not consider atheists citizens.

If I can refresh your memory, GHWB was the President of the United States. His first priority is to defend the Constitution of the United States. Leaving the First Amendment out of it wasn't mentioned in the deal. So, strictly speaking, his oath of office was falsified and invalid.

Let's get to brass tacks. It's more than likely that his parents inculcated him in this belief. Doing so did not benefit said child. Instead, the belief imbued him with a falsehood that would do him harm and do harm to virtually all Americans, except those of his particular credo. So, how is this not abuse of that thing that eventually became President...let alone the rest of us?

[Henners]

Oh come on. The false dichotomy is between good and proper parental care and child abuse. There are many steps between those opposites. Some people yell at their kids in the supermarket. I don't think that is child abuse, but I certainly think it is bad parenting in most cases.

If I chastise my child because she tells a lie and she goes to her room and cries it out and doesn't sleep for two nights because she has lost my approval do you wish to call me a child abuser? My eldest, when we returned from a trip to Alaska this summer, had a meltdown because of the way I answered one of her questions. She was genuinely distressed and stalked off for almost an hour. Does that make me a child abuser? You seem to be focusing on the effects, the consequences. If the lie has no effect on the child in question, no untoward conequences, no sleepless nights, then is it not abuse?

In the example you have given a child is put out for a few nights because s/he fears that s/he has done something wrong. If the carrot and stick story helps him/her to a better moral outlook then, no, I would not call that child abuse. It is, in fact, good and proper parenting for many people. I don't approve of that style of parenting, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this constitutes child abuse.

As someone who regularly sees adults who were abused as children and now express that previous abuse in physical manifestations I am a bit disgusted that anyone would equate the teaching of religion, however stupid I may find the ideas, with real abuse of children.


You can be disgusted as much as you like by my ideas of what constitutes child abuse, and you are very welcome to think that they are stupid if you like.

Would you care - at any point, in your own good time - to get around to answering the specific question that I asked, though, instead of risking vertigo on your high horse?

How many nights of deprived sleep would constitute child abuse?

I ask because I can give instances of people who were damaged through to adulthood by the religious-based fears instilled in them as little children.

That you have not come across such cases does not make them irrelevant. Indeed, it rather makes it look as though your whole argument is from ignorance.

Please put an upper limit on the number of nights that a child can lie awake for fear of dying in their sleep and going to hell, without that child being abused.

I'd really like to know.

For me, one night would be too many, and I regard anyone who thinks that even one night is acceptable to be a hearless, unfeeling and stupidly ignorant criminal who deserves to be locked up.

But, hell, that's just what I think.

[articulett]

One deals with physical harm and the other with your opinion of mental harm. The government has a vested interest in protecting children from physical harm. I do not want them telling me or anyone else what stories I should or should not tell.

The government steps into the free speech issue when it may result in physical harm, not when it results in irritation, disgust, or offense.

I don't like the effects of religion in many situations either. But I will fight to protect other's right to practice their religion.

What are laws regulating child labor for? Why couldn't there be similar laws guiding religious indoctrination? Are the restrictions on adults in charge really so much more important than the overall goal?

[articulett]

In the news story above--the FLDS children are told that Warren Jeffs is a prophet--god talks to him and tells them who must marry who and when and they must not defy god or there will be punishment... at present, the only prosecution or laws that figure in are "child rape"-- but it doesn't help the many who are already victimized nor does it help the many who believe that he is a prophet and controls their destiny...and it sure doesn't stop it from happening and multiplying in large ways as authoritarian religions tend to be good at.

If you protect the "faith is good" and "faith should be protected from scrutiny" meme-- you encourage the festering of cults like these for unspoken fears and unspoken rights of parents and authority figures. Is threatening kids with eternal torture a protected right of parents?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I don't like the effects of religion in many situations either. But I will fight to protect other's right to practice their religion.

What else will you fight for other's right to practice?

E.g, what about homeopathy?

How are these belief systems significantly different to religion?

Does the idea of homeopathy being banned make you feel the same as the idea of religious indoctrination of children being more heavily regulated?

If not, what's the difference for you?

[Meadmaker]

Again, you must be joking. Whether or not you believe the statement was made, it was never denied despite repeated opportunities. One can only surmise that Elder Bush did not consider atheists citizens.


I don't want a derail on the sidetrack. Read the links. If you find the topic interesting, start a new thread. Bottom line: I don't think he said it, and I do think he considered atheists citizens.

[articulett]

There is no evidence that anyone has divine truths. Children evolved to trust authority figures. There is no evidence of heaven and hell. Many people have been pass off assorted stories about what happens after you die for eons, but none are verifiable. These are facts that everyone should know and have a chance to hear. Those who say otherwise do not deserve special protection and those who state the above facts and spread it around are the real heroes. You protect the notion that "faith is good" when you protect religion and you silence those who would show others why that isn't so when you demonize those criticize indoctrination of children for some "nebulous higher good". I don't think the government really can control what people do, but there still are a lot of laws and regulations that are designed to protect children and society as a whole as well as to advance civilization and civil rights. If the government could control people, there'd be no pedophiles, gay people, need for helmet laws, drug addicts, tax cheats, war protesters-- but that doesn't mean that we don't talk things through and try to come up with solutions that are best for all people involved and it sure doesn't help when we have to consider the whims of assorted invisible immeasurable beings and possible afterlives.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You can be disgusted as much as you like by my ideas of what constitutes child abuse, and you are very welcome to think that they are stupid if you like.

Would you care - at any point, in your own good time - to get around to answering the specific question that I asked, though, instead of risking vertigo on your high horse?

How many nights of deprived sleep would constitute child abuse?

I ask because I can give instances of people who were damaged through to adulthood by the religious-based fears instilled in them as little children.

That you have not come across such cases does not make them irrelevant. Indeed, it rather makes it look as though your whole argument is from ignorance.

Please put an upper limit on the number of nights that a child can lie awake for fear of dying in their sleep and going to hell, without that child being abused.

I'd really like to know.

For me, one night would be too many, and I regard anyone who thinks that even one night is acceptable to be a hearless, unfeeling and stupidly ignorant criminal who deserves to be locked up.

But, hell, that's just what I think.

No, because I do not recognize the relevance of the question. A child's response to a story that she has heard cannot constitute child abuse. It matters not how long she doesn't sleep. No one but she is directly responsible for her response to the story. You are committing a category mistake.

[Ichneumonwasp]

What else will you fight for other's right to practice?

E.g, what about homeopathy?

How are these belief systems significantly different to religion?

Does the idea of homeopathy being banned make you feel the same as the idea of religious indoctrination of children being more heavily regulated?

If not, what's the difference for you?

Religion is a private affair. It is a story telling enterprise. People in this country are protected in their right to practice it as they see fit. I do not want to overturn the Constitution.

Homeopathy directly affects the health of other people. It is a sham with direct physically harmful consequences.

If my neighbor wants to believe that man never stepped foot on the moon, then he has the right to believe it. That doesn't affect me or anyone else in any way.

If he tries to teach other adults that they should believe the same thing then I will oppose him. He has the right to teach his kids that man never stepped foot on the moon, and I do not want the government to step in and remove that right. Just as I do not want them to step in and remove my right to laugh at Christians with my children. If I know that he teaches his kids that man never stepped foot on the moon, then I will try to teach his kids otherwise.

[Ichneumonwasp]

What are laws regulating child labor for?

To prevent physical harm to children.

Why couldn't there be similar laws guiding religious indoctrination? Are the restrictions on adults in charge really so much more important than the overall goal?

Because this is not an issue that promotes physical harm to children. When religious ideas do promote physical harm (as in the denial of health care) the government has and will continue to step in.

[Slimething]

I don't want a derail on the sidetrack. Read the links. If you find the topic interesting, start a new thread. Bottom line: I don't think he said it, and I do think he considered atheists citizens.

I read the links. The best you could do was to make it a choice of sources. If you read your first link, the author makes it clear that Bush was asked repeatedly to confirm or deny but did neither.

So, now you will not believe anything that is not recorded? Lotsa luck with that.

ETA: Evasion noted.

[Ichneumonwasp]

There is no evidence that anyone has divine truths. Children evolved to trust authority figures. There is no evidence of heaven and hell. Many people have been pass off assorted stories about what happens after you die for eons, but none are verifiable. These are facts that everyone should know and have a chance to hear. Those who say otherwise do not deserve special protection and those who state the above facts and spread it around are the real heroes.

I agree.

You protect the notion that "faith is good" when you protect religion and you silence those who would show others why that isn't so when you demonize those criticize indoctrination of children for some "nebulous higher good".

No, this does not follow. Protecting someone's right to practice his/her religion does not promote the idea that faith is good. It is a recognition that humans want to tell their own stories in their own ways. I don't have to agree with a religion to want the government out of the business of deciding what people should or should not believe. I do not believe that is the role the government should play in our lives.

Protecting religious liberty does not silence anyone. The idea is to promote more openness, not less. All ideas are open. That is how you kill bad ideas, by opening them to discussion. It is attempts to suppress ideas that foster their growth.

Try to suppress some conspiracy theorists and watch them grow and grow......


I don't think the government really can control what people do, but there still are a lot of laws and regulations that are designed to protect children and society as a whole as well as to advance civilization and civil rights. If the government could control people, there'd be no pedophiles, gay people, need for helmet laws, drug addicts, tax cheats, war protesters-- but that doesn't mean that we don't talk things through and try to come up with solutions that are best for all people involved and it sure doesn't help when we have to consider the whims of assorted invisible immeasurable beings and possible afterlives.

Yes. Those laws are designed to protect against physical (and in some instances financial) harm.

[Slimething]

Religion is a private affair. It is a story telling enterprise.

Alas, if that were only true! If it were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

People in this country are protected in their right to practice it as they see fit. I do not want to overturn the Constitution.

Actually, no they don't. The Constitution does not permit adherents to deny other citizen's rights so there are limits to the exercise of religion already. The Constitution is not one-sided.

Perhaps the solution to the problem is to tell everyone to keep their GD religion to themselves on threat of criminal prosecution. That would make the problem disappear pretty fast. Not only would the faithful stop bothering the other faithful and people like me but they would also have to stop and ask themselves why no one else wants to hear their idiocies.

[Darat]

...snip...

I don't like the effects of religion in many situations either. But I will fight to protect other's right to practice their religion.

But I bet you do not support that right to practice their religion when it impinges on others do you?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Religion is a private affair.

Really? So what are all those churches and temples for?

It is a story telling enterprise.

So is homeopathy.

People in this country are protected in their right to practice it as they see fit. I do not want to overturn the Constitution.

So believers in homeopathy could claim to be protected by the US constitution?

Homeopathy directly affects the health of other people. It is a sham with direct physically harmful consequences.

And religion never has harmful physical consequences? I'd be willing to bet that religion has resulted in many, many more deaths than homeopathy ever has.

If my neighbor wants to believe that man never stepped foot on the moon, then he has the right to believe it. That doesn't affect me or anyone else in any way.

Neither does homeopathy.

If he tries to teach other adults that they should believe the same thing then I will oppose him. He has the right to teach his kids that man never stepped foot on the moon, and I do not want the government to step in and remove that right. Just as I do not want them to step in and remove my right to laugh at Christians with my children. If I know that he teaches his kids that man never stepped foot on the moon, then I will try to teach his kids otherwise.

So would you be objecting or celebrating if the US government decided that homeopathy should be banned?

[Ivor the Engineer]

But I bet you do not support that right to practice their religion when it impinges on others do you?

What religious practices could you possibly be thinking of, Darat?:D

[Ichneumonwasp]

Alas, if that were only true! If it were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



Actually, no they don't. The Constitution does not permit adherents to deny other citizen's rights so there are limits to the exercise of religion already. The Constitution is not one-sided.

Perhaps the solution to the problem is to tell everyone to keep their GD religion to themselves on threat of criminal prosecution. That would make the problem disappear pretty fast. Not only would the faithful stop bothering the other faithful and people like me but they would also have to stop and ask themselves why no one else wants to hear their idiocies.


Yes, and I obviously ascribe to those provisos. Your right to swing your fist and all...........

I don't like the faithful proselytizing me any more than you or anyone else probably. They do have the right to proselytize but they do not have the right to use their religion to step on anyone else's toes.

My point still stands. The Constitution does protect religious freedom. I did not say that it protects religion without limit.

[Ichneumonwasp]

But I bet you do not support that right to practice their religion when it impinges on others do you?

Depends on what you mean by impinges. I support their right to teach their relgion to others who are willing to listen. That's as far as it goes. Otherwise, see my response to Slimething.

[articulett]

But I bet you do not support that right to practice their religion when it impinges on others do you?

And children are others.

And they grow up to be the other adults we share society with.

If they grow up to kill someone because their god told them too, we pay for their imprisonment.

If they grow up to spawn more children than they can afford because god told them too, we pay for their spawn.

And, Ichneumonwasp, child labor laws are designed to protect children's mental health and educational rights--not just their physical health. Child actors suffer no physical harm... and I'm not sure you could prove physical harm in most cases of child labor which was practiced heavily throughout the world including the US until after the Depression. If you had too many kids, you let factories take care of them in return for the kids' labor. Free and appropriate education laws are not about children's physical health either. We, as a nation, care about mental health and the education of our citizenry. Religion should not get special dispensation to inflict abuses without scrutiny, question, or legal ramifications. In fact, I don't think any institution that threatens nonbelievers with eternal torment--especially children-- should get any tax breaks and should be subject to public scrutiny.

How can a government justify stepping in and foisting a blood transfusion on a child who believes (as do his parents) that such a transfusion will cause him eternal torment in the afterlife and not step in to curtail the promotion of such fearful and nonsensical ideas in the first place? It's a form of bribery and manipulation. It's way worse than scaring you kid with bogeymen--because it affects their ETERNITY and reads their thoughts and requires a stupefying level of fear and faith.

[six7s]

Whether or not you believe the statement was made, it was never denied despite repeated opportunities. One can only surmise that Elder Bush did not consider atheists citizens

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 28,200 for "george bush" atheists sherman chicago (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22george+bush%22+atheists+sherman+chi cago&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images)

http://jmarkgilbert.com/shame.html

Theist Hall of Shame (http://jmarkgilbert.com/shame.html)

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

This exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday, February 27, 1989. It can also be found in Free Inquiry magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

Google Books: Words to the Wise: A Medical-Philosophical Dictionary
By Thomas Stephen Szasz (http://books.google.com/books?id=ROlclp2hxxsC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22george+bush%22+atheists+sherman+chicago&source=web&ots=-_E7G_SSlF&sig=O9bo6wP44nWumXes6sDUbxQnbRM#PPA7,M1)


Rob Sherman Advocacy
April 1, 2006
Documents at Bush Presidential Library Prove
VP Bush Questioned Citizenship and Patriotism of Atheists (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm)

Documents at Bush Library prove that
conversation between Sherman and Bush took place

An exchange of letters that took place in 1989 between the late Jon Garth Murray, then President of American Atheists, and White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray, prove that the conversation between Vice President Bush took place, exactly as I reported it. Those two letters are on file at the Bush Presidential Library in Texas. The letter from Mr. Murray to Mr. Gray is expected to be available later this year as a part of a file called Item # CF 01193-002, but a related letter by Mr. Murray to the Members of Congress, which referenced Mr. Murray's letter to Mr. Gray, is available for public view. The reply letter from Mr. Gray to Mr. Murray is also available for public view.

<snip/>

Subsequent to these astonishing statements, I wrote to (then) Vice President Bush demanding a clarification of these remarks. More than two months later, on February 21, 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, wrote to me from the White House as follows:

Your letter of December 19, 1988, to President Bush has been referred to me for reply. As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government. Needless to say, the President supports the Constitution and laws of the United States, and you may rest assured that this Administration will proceed at all times with due regard for the legal rights of atheists, as will as others with whom the President disagrees.

This letter was a clear admission by the President, through his counsel, that he had indeed made the remarks and was not backing down from them.

<snip/>
You can get your own copy of the two letters described above by contacting the Archive Department at the Bush Presidential Library. They will mail or fax them to you. You'll need to file a Freedom of Information Act request, but that can be done very easily and quickly by e-mail to library.bush@nara.gov . In the subject line, say: FOIA Request. In the body of the letter, say: Under the Freedom of Information Act, I request to view White House Office of Records Management, Subject Code RM, Document Numbers 041388 CU and 157715 CU. Include your full name, street address, phone number and whether you want the documents mailed or faxed to you. For a fax, include your fax number and state whether you have a dedicated fax line or if you use your voice line to receive faxes. They'll take care of you within a day or two. They're very fast, professional and courteous.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Really? So what are all those churches and temples for?

OK, I over-stated a bit. It is, however, largely a private affair even when practiced in a community. The inner spiritual side of it for Christianity is an intensely private affair.

So is homeopathy.

Yep, and as a story telling enterprise they have the right to tell their story to whomever will listen. Their right stops when they harm others. The government should not suppress the idea of homeopathy, but it has every right to suppress its practice.

So believers in homeopathy could claim to be protected by the US constitution?

As far as their ideas are concerned, yes.


and religion never has harmful physical consequences? I'd be willing to bet that religion has resulted in many, many more deaths than homeopathy ever has.

Strawman. I never once said that religion does not produce harmful effects. When religion produces physically harmful effects, then the government has the right to interfere with its practice.



So would you be objecting or celebrating if the US government decided that homeopathy should be banned?

I've already answered above. The practice of homeopathy should be banned because it has physically harmful effects on people. The ideas, however, cannot be banned. We should not start burning homeopathy books in a grand Farenheit 451 for the 21st century.

Where religion does not have physically harmful effects it is protected. The government may interfere when it does produce physically harmful effects, and it has done so many times in the past.

[pgwenthold]

BTW, folks, it is worth reminding everyone that Meadmaker has previously argued against gay marriage on the grounds that it will "harm the children." Actually, it's not even that. He has argued that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing gay marriage because it will lead children being better off.

IOW, he has no problem restricting civil liberties when it comes to supporting religious prejudice, but now that the same argument has been made ("stop religious indoctrination to help the children") then all of a sudden he is big on the idea of liberty.

No rational argument will work here because his position is not grounded in rationality but in christian apologetics.

So Meadmaker, if I say, "It's about the children" you know what I mean, right?

The only difference of course between this and gay marriage is that this time it IS necessarily about the children, where in gay marriage, it was a non sequitor (of course, even if it weren't, you are still adopting an opposite position in this thread).

[Ivor the Engineer]

And children are others.

I'm sorry, but according to US law children who are unable to consent are at the mercy of what their parents think is best. For some reason parents are automatically assumed to be the best people to decide what is best for their child.

[mijopaalmc]

I'm sorry, but according to US law children who are unable to consent are at the mercy of what their parents think is best. For some reason parents are automatically assumed to be the best people to decide what is best for their child.

Is the state a better surrogate?

[Ichneumonwasp]

And, Ichneumonwasp, child labor laws are designed to protect children's mental health and educational rights--not just their physical health.

Yes, that is correct. But one of the prime motivating factors for them initially was protection of physical health because of the abusive systems in the UK and the US.

Child actors suffer no physical harm... and I'm not sure you could prove physical harm in most cases of child labor which was practiced heavily throughout the world including the US until after the Depression.

Do you really want to make that argument? Child labor laws concerning actors are part and parcel of the general child labor laws that were enacted primarily to prevent physical harm to children. But, yes, education was a strong motivating factor as well.

Free and appropriate education laws are not about children's physical health either. We, as a nation, care about mental health and the education of our citizenry.

Yep. I agree completely.

Religion should not get special dispensation to inflict abuses without scrutiny, question, or legal ramifications. In fact, I don't think any institution that threatens nonbelievers with eternal torment--especially children-- should get any tax breaks and should be subject to public scrutiny.

I object to the word 'abuse' above, but otherwise agree. I think the tax break issue deserves its own thread, but I would have to agree. I don't see why religious institutions get these tax breaks. They really shouldn't.


How can a government justify stepping in and foisting a blood transfusion on a child who believes (as do his parents) that such a transfusion will cause him eternal torment in the afterlife and not step in to curtail the promotion of such fearful and nonsensical ideas in the first place? It's a form of bribery and manipulation. It's way worse than scaring you kid with bogeymen--because it affects their ETERNITY and reads their thoughts and requires a stupefying level of fear and faith.

Because it is their job to protect the physical well-being of the child and not his spiritual well-being. The government exists as a worldly institution. It should stay away from religion as much as possible. I don't want the government deciding for me what the nature of reality is anyway.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

The practice of homeopathy should be banned because it has physically harmful effects on people. The ideas, however, cannot be banned. We should not start burning homeopathy books in a grand Farenheit 451 for the 21st century.

<snip>

Homeopathic remedies are either water, ethanol or sugar pills. In the amounts they are given by homeopaths they are all totally harmless.

I think most sceptics of homeopathy object to the promotion of the idea of it being effective. Would you object if homeopathy was taught at school?

While I agree that ideas cannot be banned, that does not mean that bad ones should be given special respect or protection.

[Meadmaker]

BTW, folks, it is worth reminding everyone that Meadmaker has previously argued against gay marriage on the grounds that it will "harm the children." Actually, it's not even that. He has argued that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing gay marriage because it will lead children being better off.

IOW, he has no problem restricting civil liberties when it comes to supporting religious prejudice, but now that the same argument has been made ("stop religious indoctrination to help the children") then all of a sudden he is big on the idea of liberty.

No rational argument will work here because his position is not grounded in rationality but in christian apologetics.

So Meadmaker, if I say, "It's about the children" you know what I mean, right?

The only difference of course between this and gay marriage is that this time it IS necessarily about the children, where in gay marriage, it was a non sequitor (of course, even if it weren't, you are still adopting an opposite position in this thread).

I never said what pwengthold is claiming I said. When given a chance to vote up or down on one of the ever so popular "ban gay marriage" ammendments in 2004, in the state of Michigan, I voted against it.

I have described myself as a reluctant supporter of gay marriage. I'm sure pwengthold thinks I said what he quoted above, but he's wrong. He didn't understand what I was saying then. He still doesn't, apparently. However, that's another derail.

[Slimething]

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 28,200 for "george bush" atheists sherman chicago (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22george+bush%22+atheists+sherman+chi cago&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images)

http://jmarkgilbert.com/shame.html



Google Books: Words to the Wise: A Medical-Philosophical Dictionary
By Thomas Stephen Szasz (http://books.google.com/books?id=ROlclp2hxxsC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=%22george+bush%22+atheists+sherman+chicago&source=web&ots=-_E7G_SSlF&sig=O9bo6wP44nWumXes6sDUbxQnbRM#PPA7,M1)


Rob Sherman Advocacy
April 1, 2006
Documents at Bush Presidential Library Prove
VP Bush Questioned Citizenship and Patriotism of Atheists (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/060401a.htm)

Thanks, six7s. I suspect that Meadmaker does not want to believe that a president of the USA would hold this position because it would undermine his case severely. Add to that his admission that this apalling bias most likely was handed down by his parents like a genetic malaise and there's no issue that religious indoctrination of children is doing harm not only to said children but to the rest of us as well.

[Meadmaker]

There's something I want to say about qayak that is positive. He's honest about this topic, and that's a trait that not everyone shares.

Once you accept the "religion is child abuse" meme, his proposal is a very short logical leap. Indeed, it's almost unavoidable. If you really believe that a parent teaching religion to his kids is child abuse, then clearly something ought to be done about it. His proposal is about as modest as you can get. There's not much less that one could do.

That doesn't mean I think it's any saner than I said earlier. It's still utterly ridiculous and would overthrow religious freedom in any country where it was implemented. I'm just saying that everyone who supports the idea that teaching religion is child abuse is saying practically the same thing he's saying. He is intellectually honest.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Is the state a better surrogate?

In some cases, yes. JW's and blood transfusions? Catholics and Condoms?

[Meadmaker]

Thanks, six7s. I suspect that Meadmaker does not want to believe that a president of the USA would hold this position because it would undermine his case severely. Add to that his admission that this apalling bias most likely was handed down by his parents like a genetic malaise and there's no issue that religious indoctrination of children is doing harm not only to said children but to the rest of us as well.

If you want to start a thread about GHWB, please do. I'll participate there.

[mijopaalmc]

In some cases, yes. JW's and blood transfusions? Catholics and Condoms?

So everyone should be compelled to use condoms?

[Ivor the Engineer]

So everyone should be compelled to use condoms?

Everyone planning on having casual sex should be, yes. They certainly should not be told out and out lies about them.

So you agree about JW's and blood transfusions then?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Homeopathic remedies are either water, ethanol or sugar pills. In the amounts they are given by homeopaths they are all totally harmless.

I think most sceptics of homeopathy object to the promotion of the idea of it being effective. Would you object if homeopathy was taught at school?

While I agree that ideas cannot be banned, that does not mean that bad ones should be given special respect or protection.

1. I am not arguing for any special respect or protection for any particular ideas and certainly not religion. In my world no ideas deserve special respect aside from ideas that have significant evidentiary backing. Religion gets the basic respect that all ideas have -- you have the right to believe it and the government can't stop you from believing it as long as it hurts no one. I have the right to mock any and all ideas that I find silly.

2. The harm that homeopathy poses is that it promotes itself as protecting health at the expense of other actually useful medical remedies. There was a time when it was actually quite beneficial -- when our medical remedies killed more people than they cured -- because sometimes doing nothing is better than acting. Now it is just dumb.

3. I would object to homeopathy being taught at school as an effective means of treating disease just as I would object to anyone wanting to teach that man never walked on the moon or that life was intelligently designed as a scientific theory.

4. This thread concerns the idea that teaching religion constitutes child abuse. I have seen no evidence that it does, and I object to using the same word to describe the teaching of religion that describes the nightly rape of an eight year old by her alcoholic uncle.

[mijopaalmc]

Everyone planning on having casual sex should be, yes. They certainly should not be told out and out lies about them.

So you agree about JW's and blood transfusions then?

I do.

[Beth]

You're welcome! I'm off your Ignore List? Pity. I was very happy there. I occasionally click on some ignored posts to see if that person has changed. Sometimes they have. I felt your point regarding the word 'indoctrination' was worth responding to.

Point rejected. The meaning pf that word does not vary at all in this or any discussion. The word indoctrination involves coercion and negative reinforcement. It does not mean the same as education, as you are are about to argue. Actually, I was just pointing out how the word has been defined by some regular participants in these discussions. I don't mind referring to a religious upbringing as indoctrination. It is. I simply don't share your opinion that such indoctrination impedes their ability to make a different choice when they are adult.

Yes, people like me use the word to describe what religious upbrining is. It's not education. It's active and relentless inculcation of the weak and vulnerable into a system of self-deceit and tribalism. Your attempts to sugar-coat it are useless. Most of us have been through it and know first hand what it is. I'm sorry if you have a difficult childhood and feel your parents should have been restrained from raising you in the manner you were raised. But I have my own first hand experiences of such an upbringing and they differ significantly from yours despite overt similiarities in the religion. Do you think you can identify what it is that made your experiences abusive and your parents deserving of fines or prison for what they did to you as opposed to what my parents did to me, which I consider to be a loving upbringing making their best effort to do a good job, but making a few mistakes as well.

Another straw man. Nowhere did I say it was impossible to escape it. I did. Many Forum members have. You haven't seemed to. Your fuzzy-headed arguments belie any such claim. First, you claim that the lexicon is exactly what you mean it to be and no more. Then, you put words in other people's mouths. Then you proceed to fashion arguments that are so circular that they can only come from someone who subscribes to the unending mantra "Yes Jesus loves me. The bible tells me so." Sigh. I guess this will be a short conversation. I'm sorry you feel that way about my posts. I'll try not to respond to you again.

Yes, it absolutely does. You can prove it to yourself. You claim to be statistician, right? Wouldn't it be easier for you to compare the relative distribution of faiths today and twenty years ago? If they are roughly similar, then the evidence does indeed, doubtlessly point in that direction. Instead, you'd rather inundate us with words and excuses.

Actually no, that data wouldn't imply what you think, because it doesn't take into account how often and how many people change over time. You could have every person changing at least once during their lives and that wouldn't necessarily affect the proportion. It would be supportive evidence, but it's not proof because if the changes occur at equal rates - i.e. for every 100 people who convert to catholism, 100 cathlics convert to other religions with equal proportions.

A more serious problem is that worldwide, religious freedom is not a reality. Differences in the climate of religious freedom in various countries would also affect those proportions. However, we could look at just the US where religious freedom is part of our founding constitution. So, does the data for the US support your contention? Let's see:

At this site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm, we find the following information:

The shift away from Christianity and other organized religions:

The United States appears to be going through an unprecedented change in religious practices. Large numbers of American adults are disaffiliating themselves from Christianity and from other organized religions. Since World War II, this process had been observed in other countries, like the U.K., other European countries, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
eta: I find it interesting that the others countries that have experienced this trend also have a climate of religious freedom similar to the US. None of them forbid parents from raising their children in whatever religion they choose.
And also this: Retaining the young:

It is common for young adults to drift away from the faith group of their youth. Some never return. The large liberal and mainline Christian denominations seem to lose large numbers in this way. Only between 10 and 12% of those identifying with the Congregational, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church denominations are between the ages of 18 and 29. Islam and Buddhism appear to fare the best in this area; 56 and 58% of persons identifying with these religions are in this age group.

So, it seems that the distribution of faiths in the US over the past few decades has indeed been changing significantly and that young adults are quite likely to leave their parent's faith. To me, this is evidence that implies that despite having being religiously raised, people are able to freely choose otherwise as adults.

[Beth]

Do you know about the thousands of homeless children accused of witchcraft in Kinshasa? No.

[Ivor the Engineer]

1. I am not arguing for any special respect or protection for any particular ideas and certainly not religion. In my world no ideas deserve special respect aside from ideas that have significant evidentiary backing. Religion gets the basic respect that all ideas have -- you have the right to believe it and the government can't stop you from believing it as long as it hurts no one. I have the right to mock any and all ideas that I find silly.

Ok.

2. The harm that homeopathy poses is that it promotes itself as protecting health at the expense of other actually useful medical remedies. There was a time when it was actually quite beneficial -- when our medical remedies killed more people than they cured -- because sometimes doing nothing is better than acting. Now it is just dumb.

I agree. Belief in homeopathy is dumb.

3. I would object to homeopathy being taught at school as an effective means of treating disease just as I would object to anyone wanting to teach that man never walked on the moon or that life was intelligently designed as a scientific theory.

So you object to these ideas being put in children's heads as "truth"?

4. This thread concerns the idea that teaching religion constitutes child abuse. I have seen no evidence that it does, and I object to using the same word to describe the teaching of religion that describes the nightly rape of an eight year old by her alcoholic uncle.

I agree that the example you give of mental/physical abuse is more severe in its consequences than most religious indoctrination, but I still think frightening children with stories of hell and eternal torment so they conform is abuse and should be actively discouraged.

[articulett]

I'm sorry, but according to US law children who are unable to consent are at the mercy of what their parents think is best. For some reason parents are automatically assumed to be the best people to decide what is best for their child.

Yes, just so long as there are no APA reports defining it as abuse-- and anyone who says otherwise is a fascist meddlesome busybody trying to subvert parental authority. A parent can actually be fined if their child is habitually truant-- but if someone suggests fining parents for threatening kids with hell-- egads!

I wish the government did not recognize any divine authority--that is the way to truly stay out of things. And then exorcisms and other abuses in the name of religion would be looked at just at face value... if practices caused fear or ignorance or suffering, then people would be forced to demonstrate their positive value-- it would certainly lessen the increasing abuse of power by those exploiting the "faith is good" meme. It sugarcoats ugliness aking to treating the young Nazis as wholesome good fun. I just think that those making the most noise are protecting something they don't want to discuss. Wouldn't most people be willing to give up some of their indoctrination of children rights if it meant fewer religious abuses over all-- fewer fundies, fewer Fred Phelps clans, few madrases, fewer cults, fewer polygamous child brides, less pedophilia clergy... All this bluster covers a lot of sins for the protection of what exactly? And whom? Children are "other people" who shouldn't be threatened with religious bogeyman, aren't they?

[Ichneumonwasp]

So you object to these ideas being put in children's heads as "truth"?

Of course. I never said that I didn't object to religion being put into people's heads as 'truth' either. I just don't think the government should be in the business of deciding what stories parents can tell their children. My objection to indoctrination does not mean that I think it is abuse. I do not think it is abuse.

I agree that the example you give of mental/physical abuse is more severe in its consequences than most religious indoctrination, but I still think frightening children with stories of hell and eternal torment so they conform is abuse and should be actively discouraged.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I reserve the word 'abuse' for severe conditions. I think it begins to lose meaning when applied in the way it is being applied in this thread. To me religious indoctrination is something to which I object. I find some forms of it offensive not abusive.

[articulett]

In some cases, yes. JW's and blood transfusions? Catholics and Condoms?

Yes, and you can be prosecuted in Canada for sexual assault if you knowingly have unprotected sex while infected with HIV and not informing your partner.

Laws intrude on personal lives all the time--especially when it comes to the health and well being of the community at large. When kids are made ignorant, bigoted, fearful, and pregnant is part or in whole due to religion-- society pays. Bush's god told him to go to war-- a lot of people pay for that-- all tax payers pay-- people die... but nobody questions the whole deference to faith thing no matter how egregious the abuses--

Forever people protect the right to claim a special dispensation from god so that they don't have to answer to the public and other humans. No government entity should recognize or give any special credence or deference to ANY religious claim. Treat all as you would any other dogma proffered as "higher truth". Is it harmless? Then why worry? Is it helpful? Where's the evidence? What exactly is helpful? Can't faith stand up to a little scrutiny? What are people really afraid of? The government can't really stop people from praying and inflicting their beliefs on children, but the public has a vested interest in policing and protecting children from the more harmful practices.

[articulett]

Of course. I never said that I didn't object to religion being put into people's heads as 'truth' either. I just don't think the government should be in the business of deciding what stories parents can tell their children. My objection to indoctrination does not mean that I think it is abuse. I do not think it is abuse.



Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I reserve the word 'abuse' for severe conditions. I think it begins to lose meaning when applied in the way it is being applied in this thread. To me religious indoctrination is something to which I object. I find some forms of it offensive not abusive.

Do you find no forms of it abusive? What about kids told they are possessed? What about kid told that the devil planted bones to trick them? Just as we give up some privileges while going through security for the supposed good of the whole, wouldn't you be willing to give up some extra latitude you would never use to keep some kids from having religious abuses inflicted upon them due to the current notion that faith must not be scrutinized by outsiders?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I reserve the word 'abuse' for severe conditions. I think it begins to lose meaning when applied in the way it is being applied in this thread. To me religious indoctrination is something to which I object. I find some forms of it offensive not abusive.

The example you gave was of sexual abuse.

What would you class as psychological abuse?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Do you find no forms of it abusive? What about kids told they are possessed? What about kid told that the devil planted bones to trick them? Just as we give up some privileges while going through security for the supposed good of the whole, wouldn't you be willing to give up some extra latitude you would never use to keep some kids from having religious abuses inflicted upon them under the notion that faith must not be scrutinized by outsiders?

I would find any religion based on the idea that the child personally was the cause of all the evil in the world and not worthy to be kept alive abusive. It is hard for ideas themselves to be abusive, but there are lines that definitely cross into abuse. I think that would qualify.

The examples you gave? As to the devil planting dinosaur bones, no, I would not classify that as abuse. It's plenty dumb but not abusive.

If the kid was told that he was possessed and put under signficant bodily stress during an exorcism as a result and/or denied effective medical care, then, yes that is clearly abuse.

[Ichneumonwasp]

The example you gave was of sexual abuse.

What would you class as psychological abuse?

Same idea. It would need to be very severe to qualify as abuse. Telling someone that they and they alone are completely worthless and not worthy of life is abuse.

[Slimething]

Actually, I was just pointing out how the word has been defined by some regular participants in these discussions. I don't mind referring to a religious upbringing as indoctrination. It is. I simply don't share your opinion that such indoctrination impedes their ability to make a different choice when they are adult.

They you simply don't know what you're writing about. Indoctrination is antithetical to free choice. :boggled:

I'm sorry if you have a difficult childhood and feel your parents should have been restrained from raising you in the manner you were raised. But I have my own first hand experiences of such an upbringing and they differ significantly from yours despite overt similiarities in the religion. Do you think you can identify what it is that made your experiences abusive and your parents deserving of fines or prison for what they did to you as opposed to what my parents did to me, which I consider to be a loving upbringing making their best effort to do a good job, but making a few mistakes as well.

That portion of my post had nothing to do with my personal experience or whatever claptrap you're feeding your children. You evasion is noted.

Sigh. I guess this will be a short conversation. I'm sorry you feel that way about my posts. I'll try not to respond to you again.

Not short enough for me. I merely wanted to tell you that I find your posts nearly incomprehensible in their circularity and lack of definition. Work on it. In the meantime, I don't mind not hearing from you again.

Actually no, that data wouldn't imply what you think, because it doesn't take into account how often and how many people change over time. You could have every person changing at least once during their lives and that wouldn't necessarily affect the proportion. It would be supportive evidence, but it's not proof because if the changes occur at equal rates - i.e. for every 100 people who convert to catholism, 100 cathlics convert to other religions with equal proportions.

This is a perfect exmple of evasion. I proposed that you do a historical study of the distribution of credos from one generation to another because, earlier, you had stated that people tend to stick with the religion they were taught. Now, you're arguing that's not true because faith in the USA is a chaotic system. It can't be both at the same time. So, are you now admitting that you were wrong in that the reason people stick with the same religion voluntarily or is it because of lingering childhood coercion?

BTW, any argument by you that the distribution of adherent in the USA, a characteristic that is non-random, is variable due to infinite degrees of freedom (chaotic) does you little service as a competent statistician. Weather is more random than religious belief but it's not chaotic. (That's just an example, dear. Time to hit the books again, huh?)


A more serious problem is that worldwide, religious freedom is not a reality. Differences in the climate of religious freedom in various countries would also affect those proportions. However, we could look at just the US where religious freedom is part of our founding constitution. So, does the data for the US support your contention? Let's see:

At this site: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm, we find the following information:

eta: I find it interesting that the others countries that have experienced this trend also have a climate of religious freedom similar to the US. None of them forbid parents from raising their children in whatever religion they choose.


I'm stunned by your dishonesty. Really. I went to your link and you really should switch careers to cherry-harvester. The author there (borrowing freely from a study) is making a broad generalization. In the past eleven years, the number of self-described christians has dropped rougly six percent. Really, that small a drop shouldn't effect the experiment I proposed very much, if at all. It also belies your fantasy that kids don't strongly adhere to the nonsense they were indoctrinated in.

So, it seems that the distribution of faiths in the US over the past few decades has indeed been changing significantly and that young adults are quite likely to leave their parent's faith. To me, this is evidence that implies that despite having being religiously raised, people are able to freely choose otherwise as adults.

No, not significantly. You are deluded. Please, please, please put me back on your Ignore List. You claimed that you would win over people with whom you disagree by patiently winning them over with logic, I find that your use of the IL is hypocritical. However, I have no need of corresponding wth people who misrepresent the facts, either.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Same idea. It would need to be very severe to qualify as abuse. Telling someone that they and they alone are completely worthless and not worthy of life is abuse.

See, I think using "Just you wait until your father gets home!" is nasty and should be discouraged, so I think there is a wide gap between what you and I would consider abuse.

Anyhow, I'm off to bed.

[Beth]

Please, please, please put me back on your Ignore List.

As you wish.

[Ichneumonwasp]

See, I think using "Just you wait until your father gets home!" is nasty and should be discouraged, so I think there is a wide gap between what you and I would consider abuse.



There could well be. I agree fully that "just you wait until your father gets home" is nasty and should be discouraged. But it is not abuse. Many things, I think, fall into the 'bad parenting but not really abuse' category.

[Ichneumonwasp]

As you wish.

You really love him?:)

[qayak]

I have had several people tell me, or the list, that they think my idea is "creepy." I don't know their level of creeposity but I do know mine and I find the fact that a grown man believes these lies enough to interrupt his son's life and drag him to synagogue, is way beyond mere creepiness.

And the idea that one should be proud to defend such a person is also beyond creepy? I might think he has the right to say it but I don't think it is honourable for me to pretend he is right. It is also not honourable to pretend that his ideas are as good or better than my own.

I personally believe that anyone has the right to say that the Holocaust was a jewish conspiracy, but I am going to challenge what he says because that idea is not as good as other ideas about the Holocaust. It is in no way honourable for me to pretend to go along, or to step aside and allow him to influence others, but it is honourable to make as strong an opposing argument as I possibly can.

Now, being an atheist all my life has taken a fair amount of "screw you" attitude. Perhaps reformed believers don't have that and are just to damned used to bending over backwards for the silliness of others. Perhaps it is a survival technique they use to stop others from questioning their own lies.

But the fact of the matter is, everyone believes that their beliefs are the best or else they wouldn't have them. If I believed christianity had it right, I would be a christian and if I believed something else was better, I would believe that. I am an atheist because I believe it is a far better position to hold and I have the evidence to back it up. So, when someone says that religious indoctrination of children is okay or even preferable, I will put forth as strong and persistent an argument as I can because there is a far better way.

Imagine if, instead of dragging that boy off to synagogue, you took him to Science World, or The Royal Tyrell Museum of Paleantology or out for a walk in the woods where you could discover nature together, or down to the local harbour to learn how sailboats travel against the wind. Imagine if you did one of these every time he was supposed to be in synagogue. Imagine, if everything he knew was true, how great his life would be.

How creepy is that?

[qayak]

Question for Meadmaker:

What's so important in synagogue that other children must bear the brunt of Jesus Camp just so your son can attend? In other words: What would you give up so that Jesus Camp was never inficted upon another kid?

[articulett]

I would find any religion based on the idea that the child personally was the cause of all the evil in the world and not worthy to be kept alive abusive. It is hard for ideas themselves to be abusive, but there are lines that definitely cross into abuse. I think that would qualify.

The examples you gave? As to the devil planting dinosaur bones, no, I would not classify that as abuse. It's plenty dumb but not abusive.

If the kid was told that he was possessed and put under signficant bodily stress during an exorcism as a result and/or denied effective medical care, then, yes that is clearly abuse.

I was raised Catholic, and my parents didn't push it that hard, and I don't blame them and I believe they did the best they could on the subject. But the idea of Hell-- Eternal suffering caused me a lot of angst... and so did the notion that life was a test for one's eternity, but you weren't really supposed to ask questions about it-- just have "faith"-- I felt very bad about god killing his kid for me-- it's gruesome... a lot of stuff unnerved me, but all the adults seem to believe this stuff was true and no-one mocked it or anything, so I figured they must all know something-- and so I spent a lot of angst filled years worrying about how to ensure my eternity and afraid that I might have been born into or picked the wrong religion. Sure, this isn't every kids experience. Some are better; many are worse. But I hope fewer kids have these experiences. I think the truth or saying "I don't know" is much better than a lie... and the best way to raise honest children that society benefits from. Secular societies show greater societal function, and I understand why.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I
And the idea that one should be proud to defend such a person is also beyond creepy? I might think he has the right to say it but I don't think it is honourable for me to pretend he is right. It is also not honourable to pretend that his ideas are as good or better than my own.



Correct. It is important to separate the right to a belief from the belief itself. Generally when people say that they will fight for someone's right to believe something they clearly make that distinction and will fight not for the belief necessarily but for a person's right to hold whatever belief they want.

Now, I can easily turn around and hit them full blast for believing whatever claptrap they say they believe in even though I think it important to defend their right to that belief.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I was raised Catholic, and my parents didn't push it that hard, and I don't blame them and I believe they did the best they could on the subject. But the idea of Hell-- Eternal suffering caused me a lot of angst... and so did the notion that life was a test for one's eternity, but you weren't really supposed to ask questions about it-- just have "faith"-- I felt very bad about god killing his kid for me-- it's gruesome... a lot of stuff unnerved me, but all the adults seem to believe this stuff was true and no-one mocked it or anything, so I figured they must all know something-- and so I spent a lot of angst filled years worrying about how to ensure my eternity and afraid that I might have been born into or picked the wrong religion. Sure, this isn't every kids experience. Some are better; many are worse. But I hope fewer kids have these experiences. I think the truth or saying "I don't know" is much better than a lie... and the best way to raise honest children that society benefits from. Secular societies show greater societal function, and I understand why.

And I support your desire that fewer kids have those experiences. I simply draw the line at saying that this is abuse. It's wacko and it's non-productive. I don't think it's abuse.

I was raised Presbyterian. You couldn't pay me enough to make me attend another Presbyterian service. But life being the wacky thing it is I always seem to end up donating blood at the drives in the Presbyterian church on my way home.

[articulett]

In my own family, some of my relatives have been rather vocal about my decision not to raise my child with religion. I think they would have a tizzy fit if shared my similar opinions regarding their infliction of bible stories like plagues and even circumcision on them. The religious have come to expect and get deference--but they sure are not quiet about inflicting their opinions on others. They would silence me while bleating on and on to anyone who will listen and any child entrusted in their care--and feel extra special moral for doing so.

As for the term abuse-- it's an opinion word, and people don't agree. I don't care whether it's called abuse or not-- I just don't think it's good to promote the notion that faith is "special"-- or a means to truth.

I think our rational thinking minds are the greatest gifts we humans have evolved--and the ability to share actual knowledge with each other--not just manipulative stories passing as "divine truths". I think we've outgrown religion the way we've outgrown rain dances and virgin sacrifices and slavery--

[Ichneumonwasp]

In my own family, some of my relatives have been rather vocal about my decision not to raise my child with religion. I think they would have a tizzy fit if shared my similar opinions regarding their infliction of bible stories like plagues and even circumcision on them. The religious have come to expect and get deference--but they sure are not quiet about inflicting their opinions on others. They would silence me while bleating on and on to anyone who will listen and any child entrusted in their care--and feel extra special moral for doing so.

As for the term abuse-- it's an opinion word, and people don't agree. I don't care whether it's called abuse or not-- I just don't think it's good to promote the notion that faith is "special"-- or a means to truth.

I think our rational thinking minds are the greatest gifts we humans have--and the ability to share actual knowledge with eac hother--not just manipulative stories passing as "divine truths".


Yeah, well, I don't think they get any brownie points for humility, which I find infinitely amusing since they usually go on and on about how they are superior in their Christian humility.

Nietzsche pegged 'em spot on.

[Beth]

You really love him?:)

:)

[Slimething]

Now, being an atheist all my life has taken a fair amount of "screw you" attitude. Perhaps reformed believers don't have that and are just to damned used to bending over backwards for the silliness of others. Perhaps it is a survival technique they use to stop others from questioning their own lies.

Well stated. I was raised catholic and had to suffer the persistent "you're going to hell" chorus from the family. They quit when they realized that threats that were delivered in loco deus had no effect on me. Once I studied up on religion, I was able to show them that their religion was not as pure as they thought it was.

So, I've learned to bite my tongue to preserve some peace. Except once: my family is a collection of tireless seekers. My older brother has of late tired of xianity and dabbled in other faiths, only to alight on islam for about two year. I was at a reunion where a tableful of xians (notably including our mom and sister) were all voicing dismay at his falling for the lies of islam. The man was being so maligned that I had to chirp up in my ever-endearing style. I pointed out to them the fact that the lies of islam arose from the lies of xianity so it was very easy to jump from one to the other. That pretty much stopped the conversation cold. I enjoyed their baleful glares the rest of the night.

[Meadmaker]

I personally believe that anyone has the right to say that the Holocaust was a jewish conspiracy, but I am going to challenge what he says because that idea is not as good as other ideas about the Holocaust.


Like the idea it was a Catholic conspiracy?

Now, being an atheist all my life has taken a fair amount of "screw you" attitude.

Oddly, I've known lifelong atheists without it. I think your attitude is yours, not dependent on the religious beliefs of you, or others. For several years, on and off, I went to Unitarian churches. The ministers of the two I attened fairly regularly were both lifelong atheists. I never heard or detected a "screw you" attitude. They spoke highly of the value of religious traditions, and I suspect they would not think highly of ticketing church-goers, even if they were exempted from the fines.

Imagine if, instead of dragging that boy off to synagogue, you took him to Science World, or The Royal Tyrell Museum of Paleantology or out for a walk in the woods where you could discover nature together, or down to the local harbour to learn how sailboats travel against the wind. Imagine if you did one of these every time he was supposed to be in synagogue. Imagine, if everything he knew was true, how great his life would be.

How creepy is that?

Grandma teaches him sailing. I don't know anything about it myself. I don't know much about the Royal Tyrell Museum, but will the Carnegie Museum do? We have memberships at both local science museums, but they aren't nearly as impressive as Carnegie, so we went to Pittsburgh to visit it. He wants to be a Forest Ranger when he grows up, probably because he has loved our camping vacations in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

You don't know very much about religion, I'm afraid. There's nothing they teach him, at synagogue or parochial school, that is contradicted by science. What do you suppose they teach him? They teach him evolution. They teach him that God exists. That's a question kind of beyond science. At school, they teach him that our tradition says God worked miracles to get his ancestors out of Egypt, but they also teach him that not everyone believes that. They don't really teach whether it's "true" or "false". At the synagogue, our rabbi teaches that those are old legends. Other rabbis would teach different things about those stories. I side with our rabbi.

I have a friend who was a lifelong atheist, until she fell in love with a Catholic. They're married. She can be downright preachy these days. It would be poetic justice if some of the people who say religion is child abuse had a child and that happened to her. Would you be telling her that she was abusing your grandchildren?

[articulett]

Well stated. I was raised catholic and had to suffer the persistent "you're going to hell" chorus from the family. They quit when they realized that threats that were delivered in loco deus had no effect on me. Once I studied up on religion, I was able to show them that their religion was not as pure as they thought it was.

So, I've learned to bite my tongue to preserve some peace. Except once: my family is a collection of tireless seekers. My older brother has of late tired of xianity and dabbled in other faiths, only to alight on islam for about two year. I was at a reunion where a tableful of xians (notably including our mom and sister) were all voicing dismay at his falling for the lies of islam. The man was being so maligned that I had to chirp up in my ever-endearing style. I pointed out to them the fact that the lies of islam arose from the lies of xianity so it was very easy to jump from one to the other. That pretty much stopped the conversation cold. I enjoyed their baleful glares the rest of the night.

Well it did work on me... caused me a lot of angst. And made me think that truth could be found through a feeling and faith. I understood why those girls could fall prey to someone like Manson. If faith is a good way to know "the truth"--then that means your goal in this life should be to find the truth that "feels" right and believe it to the extreme so that you can have a blissfu eternity and avoid the fate "worse than death". Once you stick the notion in a kids head that faith is good-- just like your brother illustrates-- you have given them no tools for separating one from another. Who needs evidence when you have faith. Facts become a "too of satan" or stuff spouted by "false prophets". And all of this stems from the idea that faith is good-- necessary for salvation-- an avenue of truth-- what god wants more than anything-- that life is a test. Those who don't take it seriously don't see it's harms as they call those who do take it seriously crazy-- and yet they prop up the paradigm that faith is good so that no one questions the one that they are inflicting... and so they all go unchecked.

Your Catholic mother had no more of a case that he Islamic son was believing lies than his counterclaim that it was she who had been fooled. And that's the way it is with all faith based notions and claims of divine truths. And that IS scary. If god sometimes talks to people, who are you to say he didn't tell GWB to start a war in Iraq or the Taliban to fly airplanes into the twin towers? Once you've allowed that he is beyond your comprehension but he exists you forfeit the right to say who is and isn't talking to in his magical invisible way.

I do hope that people quite inflicting their religions on children because they assume it's good or necessary or contains higher truths or leads to more moral choices. The evidence doesn't support any of that, and people really ought to think about the long term consequences of promoting the "faith is good" meme. When you protect your right to inflict that notion on your kids-- you protect others who would inflict Jesus Camp and such on theirs. I think it's very important to teach kids the difference between facts and "everything else"--including belief, faith, opinions, mottos, delusions, impressions, notions, etc. There are adults on this forum who cannot tell the difference between one and the other, and I do think the "faith is good" meme plays a role in this fuzzy thinking.

[Slimething]

You don't know very much about religion, I'm afraid. :confused:

There's nothing they teach him, at synagogue or parochial school, that is contradicted by science.

Then, why take him? Why not just do nature walks, go to planetaria, museums, etc? Of what use is a secular religous school? Not that I don't like it but stop wasting your time and money.

What do you suppose they teach him? They teach him evolution. They teach him that God exists.

Whoa! That last one is not in way consistent with science!

At school, they teach him that our tradition says God worked miracles to get his ancestors out of Egypt, but they also teach him that not everyone believes that. They don't really teach whether it's "true" or "false". At the synagogue, our rabbi teaches that those are old legends. Other rabbis would teach different things about those stories. I side with our rabbi.

So, what you are saying is that your kid at your synagogue is OK but others aren't. So much for your argument that religious indoctrination is not child abuse. I'll point out to you that, unless you sit in the classes, you know nothing about what they're teaching him. Next time you have him alone and in a calm mood, ask him what he thinks of xians, moslems, etc. Maybe they're teaching him more than you realize.

I have a friend who was a lifelong atheist, until she fell in love with a Catholic. They're married. She can be downright preachy these days. It would be poetic justice if some of the people who say religion is child abuse had a child and that happened to her. Would you be telling her that she was abusing your grandchildren?

Probably not because I have no grandchildren. If confronted, I may tell her what an intellectual hypocrite she is but, as usual, I would probably just shake my head and walk. (Sorry, qayak!)

[Meadmaker]

Question for Meadmaker:

What's so important in synagogue that other children must bear the brunt of Jesus Camp just so your son can attend? In other words: What would you give up so that Jesus Camp was never inficted upon another kid?

This isn't going to make me very popular, but then again, I'm not starting out very popular either.


My answer is, as you might suspect, nothing. I watched the movie, and it is kind of creepy, but I wasn't outraged. I disliked the camp enough that I was looking for some excuse to find something to use the force of law to ban it, and I found nothing. Even if I were inclined to interfere, I think the damage done to the family relationships by interfering would do worse damage than the camp itself.

I don't have any experience with a camp that was quite so intense as that one, but I had friends who had experiences of religious camps and retreats only a little bit shy of it. They told me about their experiences as we guzzled beer in High School. I think it's a lot harder to brainwash a kid than it looks.

[Meadmaker]

Next time you have him alone and in a calm mood, ask him what he thinks of xians, moslems, etc. Maybe they're teaching him more than you realize.

What makes you think I don't do that? For a hobby, I yak about religion with strangers. You think I don't do that with my son?

[articulett]

I am always curious when I hear about supposed atheists that switch. What sort of atheist were they--or were they just "unchurched"-- hadn't thought about it. Because I thought long and hard, and imagining someone going in the opposite direction would truly be like imagining myself believing in Santa again. I understand hopping from one faith to another-- after all, if faith is a means to truth or necessary for salvation-- then you ought to sample a few-- and deeply... if "degree of faith" counts to his invisible almightiness as his assorted scriptures seem to dictate. Having "faith" is the supposed key to all kinds of glories according to all sorts of dogmas and woo and not having it can lead to all sorts of bad things-- even eternal suffering.

But I can't imagine someone whose actually thought about this-- realized what a blind and nonsensical and manipulative path "faith" is-- I can't imagine them actually being able to make themselves believe again. It smacks of dementia or brain damage. I hear of such people... but I never get an actual explanation of what made them call themselves an atheist in the first place (and did anyone else know they referred to themselves as such at the time?) and what in the world counted as evidence for whatever specific faith they found themselves immersed in the second time? If it was my kid, I'd be very curious as to the answers to those questions as well as understanding what sort of benefit he believes his child would get from indoctrination. Moreover, he'd damn well know that he'd better not expect me to "play along". I can't imagine having a kid who would threaten any child with hell or who would claim access to divine knowledge. Maybe an unchurched kid just picking up the "faith is good" meme from society-- but not a kid who discussed it and thought about it and understood how no could actually know what if anything happens to consciousness after death-- I don't speak up when my sister plops her kids in front of bible cartoons showing plagues and god testing Abraham by asking him to kill his kid-- but my stomach turns. I don't know what to say or what my goal should be--but if the kids ever want to talk about it, they will hear an adult mocking that stuff-- because I think it's crazy, creepy, scary crap and wrong to pretend that it's deep higher truths that have hidden special meaning.

But even some non-religious people on a skeptics forum are highly sensitive to such religious scrutiny-- I can't imagine a positive reaction from religious folks for me or their kids if I were to speak up... that's why I like general consciousness raising--creating a society where we are free to query faith? I want to be free to ask, "why do you think it's good to show your kids these cartoons?"-- "what lessons do you think they are getting?"-- "do you think that faith is a good way to know truth--and if so, how do you distinguish one faith from another?" etc. But the tiniest prodding of faith brings out a flurry of protectors of "faith"-- though they never tell us what the hell faith is good for (we're just supposed to assume it's good like they have, I guess.)

[articulett]

I think it's a lot harder to brainwash a kid than it looks.

It only takes one George Bush... one Pope... one Osama Bin Laden... one Fred Phelps to inflict a LOT of human suffering because of "faith". If your kid believes faith is a good way to know truths and that the creator of the universe has chosen some earthly dudes to spread his word-- you have made your kid vulnerable to anyone who can convince him that they are one of the "chosen"-- or even moreso-- if they can convince him he is. You do the rest of us no favors by propping of such a notion.

[articulett]

What makes you think I don't do that? For a hobby, I yak about religion with strangers. You think I don't do that with my son?

So what does he think about their truths as opposed to his truths? Does he think they are mistaken while he was born into the "chosen religion"? Does he believe that an invisible entity cares what he "believes"? Does he think faith is special and good-- particularly his faith? Does he think it must be true since dad endorses it? Or do you let him know it's more about culture and heritage. Does he like it? Does he want to go? Why make him go? How is he better because of it? What are you afraid will happen if you neglect his religious education? Why is his education so important that you would gladly cover for Jesus camp and tell those kiddies to tough it out so that no one could keep you from your important indoctrination?

I don't find "Jesus Camp" to be "no big deal"-- nor many of the lies, misinformation, bigotry, and anti-science proffered as "higher truths". I think it makes people ignorant, self-important, and dishonest because they think it wins them brownie points for the invisible guy. I would imagine most parents would be willing to withstand some scrutiny to avoid the infliction of religious abuses (or harmful practices or threats or lies passed off as higher truths that must be believed) on other trusting children. But perhaps not. I would think all skeptics would be interested in raising consciousness or discussing this issue without making bad guys our of those who find such practices "abusive" or "wrong" or "harmful" or "lies" or "bigoted" or "ignorance promoting" or "fine worthy". The practices themselves surely cause more harm than the above words--and there are no good words one can use to discuss the issue with apologists and the those taught to defend their faith at all costs. Children are "others"-- do parents have a right to inflict any belief or lie or threat upon their child? If you don't want them inflicting it on you or your kid-- why would you endorse their "right" to do it to their own? By the same argument, shouldn't they decide about bike helmets and vaccinations and schooling and safety seats and child labor instead of the government?

[qayak]

They don't really teach whether it's "true" or "false".

Well, this is the most wishy washy synagogue I have ever heard of but obviously it is you that doesn't know much a bout religion. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of churches/synagogues/temples/ teach that the very tenets of their religion are anything BUT true?

Could you give us some references.

I find your statement about your own synagogue very hard to believe, do they have a website where they say these are all just myths? Can you give us the address?

Wow! What a lot of effort for your rabbi to go to for something that is just a myth!

[qayak]

I am always curious when I hear about supposed atheists that switch. What sort of atheist were they--or were they just "unchurched"-- hadn't thought about it.

You mean like Kirk Cameron, he claims he was an atheist before his decent into lunacy?

[articulett]

You mean like Kirk Cameron, he claims he was an atheist before his decent into lunacy?

These supposed atheists were never atheists to anyone they knew-- they just hadn't been seized by any faith as far as I can tell. But theists are always dishonest to promote their belief... just like creationists... so I always take the "I used to be an atheist, but..." or even the "I'm an atheist, but..." with a grain of salt. I know a lot of atheists... I don't know anyone who is an "atheist, but..." Believers and apologists are always protecting faith so they must think it's good for something or that there are some benefits to encouraging the "faith is good" meme-- I wish they could say what it was. When people would say that they think kids should be raised with religion, I always asked why, but I only got vague, nonsensical answers. I don't think people know the reason... I think it's just this deeply embedded belief from childhood that "faith is good"-- or maybe some sort of childish pascal's wager thing... What else could it be? Or maybe they don't want to examine their own faith or even ask themselves if it's good to promote faith as a means of knowledge. I just wish someone could make me understand--but I don't think they understand why they are protecting faith-- or even that they are protecting faith.

[six7s]

I have a friend who was a lifelong atheist, until she fell in love with a Catholic. They're married. She can be downright preachy these days. It would be poetic justice if some of the people who say religion is child abuse had a child and that happened to her. Would you be telling her that she was abusing your grandchildren?

If she would stop preaching at me for long enough and actually listen and think, then YES! Absolutley!

Why ever not?

If you're not part of a solution, you're part of the problem

[Meadmaker]

So what does he think about their truths as opposed to his truths? Does he think they are mistaken while he was born into the "chosen religion"? Does he believe that an invisible entity cares what he "believes"? Does he think faith is special and good-- particularly his faith? Does he think it must be true since dad endorses it? Or do you let him know it's more about culture and heritage. Does he like it? Does he want to go? Why make him go? How is he better because of it? What are you afraid will happen if you neglect his religious education? Why is his education so important that you would gladly cover for Jesus camp and tell those kiddies to tough it out so that no one could keep you from your important indoctrination?

There's so many assumptions behind these questions that it's hard to answer. mu would be good in some cases.

I don't know about "his truth" vs. "their truth". The idea of "chosen people" isn't really all that current among Jews, especially of the liberal variety, these days. I suppose he thinks it is good to believe in God. He does. He doesn't think that his religion is any better than anyone else's, though, and he doesn't look down on people who don't.

As for why I chose a religious education for him there are two basic reasons. One is simply that I thought the school was better academically than the public school. On a different level, though, I think that public schools are very lacking in that nebulous "values" education. They are justifiably paranoid about venturing into any subject that touches on religion, and so they avoid those subjects. They leave them to the parents, but a lot of the parents then don't bother.

Upthread I posted the "obligations without measure" as something that religion teaches that is important. In his own special way, qayak pointed out that those aren't really religious values and you don't need to teach religion to teach those values. He's absolutely right. You don't. Nevertheless, I think it's good to spend some time thinking about those things, and while you could, as an atheist, do exactly that, frequently people don't. I wanted to make sure that my kid did.

[Meadmaker]

Well, this is the most wishy washy synagogue I have ever heard of but obviously it is you that doesn't know much a bout religion. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of churches/synagogues/temples/ teach that the very tenets of their religion are anything BUT true?

Could you give us some references.

I find your statement about your own synagogue very hard to believe, do they have a website where they say these are all just myths? Can you give us the address?

Wow! What a lot of effort for your rabbi to go to for something that is just a myth!

For privacy reasons, I've decided not to actually mention the specific Temple I belong to, although I've said enought that if you were truly interested it wouldn't be hard to figure out. There aren't all that many of them.

I think you would find that most Reform Jews consider them legends, and most Reform Rabbis teach it as such. There is also a small but growing group called Reconstructionist Jews that teach, officially, that there is no such thing as a personal God.

I'll see if I can find a good web link that describes that sort of teaching.

ETA: Here's an interesting link that was the first hit I got when typing "Can I convert to Judaism if I don't believe in God" into google. (I did not use the quotes)

http://judaism.about.com/od/conversi2/f/conv_god.htm