Fundamentalism and Children

[Wildy]

I didn't really want to hijack a thread about a different topic so I thought this is a better time then any to create my first thread here. I apologise in advance if this has already been discussed.

The thread is question is this one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=93928).

Naughtyhippo pointed out a page from the Objective Ministries site.

This is their kids part (http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/). Take a look and you will see what these specific people want their kids to believe.

Looking at it you can see some rather scary ideals that these people want children to believe in. Complete devotion to God, intolerance towards non-Judeo Christians and Atheists, creation science and the idea that ideas like evolution are wrong.

Now we may find some of these things to be funny (the Atheist bit) but do we really want to see children being taught that Hindus are unsaved? Or that Atheists are mean people? Or that Kangaroos came from the Middle East like all animals?

Indoctrinating children in ideas like this (especially in the sciences) would set them up for greater trials and tribulations and greater falls when they are shown to be wrong, or be called ignorant if they persist with these ideas. Are the parents who let their kids go onto these sites unable to reconcile their faith with the facts that they want their children to continue fighting a losing battle against ideas that scare them?

And to be fair it isn't only the Christians that do this, remember the Muslim fanatics using a Mickey Mouse character to further their supposed Jihad against the infidels?

How are children supposed to make up their own minds about their faith if they are being force fed only one side of the argument from a young age?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

This is a very serious question. I think we could all agree on two things:

1. That parents have a responsibility to teach their kids some things. As an example I'll use basic math. If you refuse for your children to learn how to add and subtract, I would say that is abuse and should be a crime.

2. That parents should have the right to raise their children in a religion of their choosing.

I guess the real question is where do these 2 ideas collide? I think we could all agree that if a religion says numbers are evil and that children should not be taught basic math, we as a society would not tolerate this and force them to teach them math. But what about evolution? How about basic computer use? History? What is the minimum a child must be taught?

Hard questions.

LLH

[tsg]

I guess the real question is where do these 2 ideas collide?

I would suggest where the religion teaches things that are demonstrably false.

[ImaginalDisc]

WARNING: Objective Ministires is an elaborate parody. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Ministries)

[Wildy]

I hope the forum software doesn't mind what I am doing here, or I will probably annoy a whole bunch of people...


1. That parents have a responsibility to teach their kids some things. As an example I'll use basic math. If you refuse for your children to learn how to add and subtract, I would say that is abuse and should be a crime.

You mean similar to what some people said about the Prussian Blue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Blue_%28duo%29) girls, that what their parents had taught them could be considered a form of child abuse?

2. That parents should have the right to raise their children in a religion of their choosing.

Agreed.

I think we could all agree that if a religion says numbers are evil and that children should not be taught basic math, we as a society would not tolerate this and force them to teach them math. But what about evolution? How about basic computer use? History? What is the minimum a child must be taught?

There is one problem with this statement though. In our society a basic knowledge of maths is important, you probably couldn't survive without it. Computer use is another important thing for children to learn especially as our society moves towards being more computer based.

History helps to answer questions involving older buildings, monuments etc. but it's relevance also depends on the location and what is being taught. For me the semester of Modern History in Year 11 two years ago was rather pointless because it was US oriented. I would have preferred learning more about pre-Federation Australia because it would be more relevant to me, and the history of Australia around Federation has been rammed down my throat for too many years.

Anyway I partly digress.

Finally we come to evolution. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that evolution is not really that important for someone who isn't going to learn a science with any biological aspect to it. But in the current climate in the US, and the small spillover that hit Australia (stupid Ken Ham...) it is starting to not be the case. What we see on various Internet fora is that the people who don't know evolution but think they do after hearing about it's supposed "evils" from a pastor start to argue against it without any clue of what evolution actually says.

What we see is that evolution has reached a point where it has to be taught to balance a view that isn't scientific in any way.

I guess the real question is where do these 2 ideas collide?

I would suggest where the religion teaches things that are demonstrably false.

Agreed. But how do you convince someone that biblical literalism (sola scriptura?) is not the right way to go? The Christian denominations that don't follow literalism seem to be more accepting of evolution then those that do.

[Darth Rotor]

This is a very serious question. I think we could all agree on two things:

1. That parents have a responsibility to teach their kids some things. As an example I'll use basic math. If you refuse for your children to learn how to add and subtract, I would say that is abuse and should be a crime.
No, I don't think you can get agreement thanks to your last clause. When will you people stop it with this "something I disagree with is child abuse" crap? (LOLH, you are not the only person who has ever done this intellectually dishonest thing, so please accept that my frustration isn't solely directed at you. Your post in general raises good points.)

Is this the Skeptic's Godwinian default into irrationality? "Whatever I deem incorrect child rearing is by definition child abuse?" I sincerely hope not, though this usage crops up on this forum again and again.

It isn't child abuse to undereducate your children, else we'd have jails bursting to overcapacity, due to child abusers being jailed, all over the country, and all over the world, thanks to parents who are not very good as teachers of many things, or who neglect various educational imperatives.

Let us next jail all Mexican immigrants, as child abusers, who choose not to teach their kids English. Let us jail all parents who fail to, and choose not to, teach their kids the birds and the bees bit.

Then . . . never mind.

Back to "won't teach my kids to add and subtract" concept.

Suboptimal parenting? Yes.

Abusive?

No.

Is it easily fixable?

Yes. (Math class. Tutoring. )

Is real child abuse easily fixable?

No, the emotional and physical harm in some cases can't be fixed, only mitigated.

By the way, there are schools, and school attendance is generally required, see truancy laws, so your example isn't a good one. I am sure you can use, or come up with, a better one, to illustrate your disagreement with how one sect views child indoctrination.

DR

[LordoftheLeftHand]

No, I don't think you can get agreement thanks to your last clause. When will you people stop it with this "something I disagree with is child abuse" crap? (LOLH, you are not the only person who has ever done this intellectually dishonest thing, so please accept that my frustration isn't solely directed at you. Your post in general raises good points.)

No offense taken. I seriously thought everyone would agree with that statement. Do you believe there are SHOULD be any minimum standards of education for children? How about reading/writing? Or even the ability to speak? The tying of shoes? How to dress yourself? How to use the bathroom? Anything?

LLH

[qayak]

This is a very serious question. I think we could all agree on two things:

2. That parents should have the right to raise their children in a religion of their choosing.

No such right exists, nor should it.

[pgwenthold]

No such right exists, nor should it.


Interestingly, the same people who would claim they have the "right to raise their children in religion of their chosing" are the same ones who will argue that the state has a right to prevent gay marriage because gay parents are less optimal than having a mother and a father.

IOW, on one hand, the state has the right to interfere because "it is good for society," while in the other, the state can't interfere regardless of whether it is good for society or not (which a well-educated populace would be).

[LordoftheLeftHand]

No such right exists, nor should it.

Wow, I couldn't get everyone to agree either statement. I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

LLH

[Darth Rotor]

No offense taken. I seriously thought everyone would agree with that statement. Do you believe there are SHOULD be any minimum standards of education for children? How about reading/writing? Or even the ability to speak? The tying of shoes? How to dress yourself? How to use the bathroom? Anything?

LLH

I don't disagree that there is a massive list of things you ought to teach your children.

Not doing so being called "child abuse" is what I objected to. Your idea that we parents ought to teach our children well is agreed.

Parent of two.

DR

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I don't disagree that there is a massive list of things you ought to teach your children.

Not doing so being called "child abuse" is what I objected to. Your idea that we parents ought to teach our children well is agreed.
Thank you for clarifying. So do you think there is anything a parent should be required, by law, to teach a child? (all this assumes of course that the child is capable of learning, and not seriusoly handicapped).

LLH

[Meadmaker]

I think parents should have the right to raise their kids in any religion, and in the United States, they do have that right.

What they don't have is the ability to do so. This forum is filled with people brought up in a religion who subsequently stopped either believing or practicing that religion. (Myself included.) Teach your kids whatever they want, but in the end they will decide.

As for certain teachings being literally criminal, we have compulsory education in this country, and that is a good thing. Most states allow you to homeschool, and all states allow private schools, but if you choose some form of non state-sponsored education, you have to be able to demonstrate that your chosen form of education meets minimum standards. In that sense, it is criminal not to teach your kids certain things. Again, that's a good law.

Beyond that, though, this talk of religious education as child abuse scares me. I would not want to live in a world where that view became mainstream.

[Darth Rotor]

Thank you for clarifying. So do you think there is anything a parent should be required, by law, to teach a child? (all this assumes of course that the child is capable of learning, and not seriusoly handicapped).


LLH
Keep the government out of my house, thanks.

Useless law. Not a good proposal. Every time you make a law, or set of laws, you have to enforce them. Most people don't need a law to tell them to "teach their children" so the law is grossly unnecessary.

Schools are an available public function that handles a great deal of basic teaching of some things, and there is a plethora of public information available, and lots of for a fee info, for any parent with even a modest motive at all for raising kids. Those who fall into the exception are already covered in laws that result in neglected children being taken from them.

Your suggestion for such a set of laws "of what must be taught by parents" is advocacy for redundancy.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I

Beyond that, though, this talk of religious education as child abuse scares me. I would not want to live in a world where that view became mainstream.
If you kill off all skeptics, that world will never happen.

Final Solution for fifty, Adolf. :p

(For the anally puckered, that was a bit of a joke.)

That course of action is obviously extreme, so hopefully a dialogue will remain open to demonstrate the unsuitability of that concept.

DR

[qayak]

Wow, I couldn't get everyone to agree either statement. I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

LLH

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.

3- it is your right to assault your children.

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.

I think this should be expanded to offer real freedom of religion by insisting children wait until they are old enough to make up their own minds.

[qayak]

So do you think there is anything a parent should be required, by law, to teach a child?

Parents are already required by law to send their children to school which is a start. It is time for this to be improved upon though.

[Beth]

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.

3- it is your right to assault your children.

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.

I think this should be expanded to offer real freedom of religion by insisting children wait until they are old enough to make up their own minds.

1 - No. But it is your right to decide who minor daughter is allowed to see, when and where. You can, for example, insist on chaparoning your daughter on all her dates and never allowing her to be alone with a male. It's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

2 - No. If the medical condition is one where there is known treatment that has a high probability of success, parental refusal to consent can result in their losing custody. But parents can refuse generally accepted health care such as vaccinations if they choose. This is a really dicey area in our society right now, deciding when a course of treatment is necessary enough to justify taking custody away from parents. Again, it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

3 - No, but it is your right to discipline your children and spanking them is a permissible punishment. This, too, is a dicey area in our society right now, deciding what is 'abusive' and what it not. Again, it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two examples.

So, where should we draw the line on a fundamentalist education? What we actually do at this point seems pretty reasonable to me in regards to parental responsibility. Refusal to provide a basic education is considered neglectful to the point of justifying taking custody away from the parents. But teaching them that evolution is a theory and that it's wrong does not justify such an action. Again, I think's it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

Like Meadmaker, I would hate to live in a society where parents were not permitted to pass on their religious beliefs to their children. I hope it never happens here.

[Meadmaker]

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.


I'm unaware of any such court ruling. I am aware that certain practices are forbidden, regardless of religion.

For example, in the United States, it is a crime to have sex with someone twelve years of age. You cannot use religious beliefs to avoid prosecution if you break the law about underage sex.

In other words, the law protects their bodies. Their minds are fair game. While that can be unfortunate, the alternative is to define thought crimes, which would be worse, in my humble opinion.

[qayak]

I'm unaware of any such court ruling. I am aware that certain practices are forbidden, regardless of religion.

Courts have removed children from parents who would not allow medical treatment so those parents were not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wanted.

There are court cases pending on the marriage of young girls to old men. Of course, this won't stop it from happening to those girls but it will hopefully prevent the practice in the future which will mena more parents can't raise their children in the religion they wish.

I think it is high time the courts and governments looked at all the other abuses religions and religious parents push on their children.

[Meadmaker]

Courts have removed children from parents who would not allow medical treatment so those parents were not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wanted.

I dare say you would find few people who would use the language in the way you are using it. When most people talk about "raising their children in a religion", they are referring to teaching that religion to their children. The Christian Scientist parents are free to tell their kids that it is sinful to take medicine, which is what most of us mean when we say that they are raising their kids in that religion. They aren't free to actually withold the medication, which is something else entirely.

Of course, you are free to use whatever definition you like. It appears that by "raising a child in a religion", you would include forcing the children into any acts that the religion might demand. Of course, if that's what you mean, then I don't know of anyplace in the world where parents have a legal right to raise their children in any religion they choose, and I would not wish them to have such a right.

[qayak]

Like Meadmaker, I would hate to live in a society where parents were not permitted to pass on their religious beliefs to their children. I hope it never happens here.

It couldn't happen soon enough for me.

I don't understand people who wish to desperately hold onto something that has caused so much misery throughout history.

In my opinion, there isn't much difference between the desire to preserve christianity, judaism, islam, or any other rerligion and wanting to preserve the bubonic plague, polio, or cancer.

[Meadmaker]

I have a question specifically for qayak, but anyone else feel free to chime in as well.

Could you give us an example of legislation you would support that would protect the victims of the sort of child abuse you have described?

It doesn't upset me all that much to hear people rant and rave about what a bad guy I am for bringing up a little Jew. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, after all. What I worry about is that there seem to be people who are actually sufficiently upset about it that they would use government power in opposition to my plans. Is this a groundless fear? Or are people really serious about protecting my son from my designs? And if so, what steps would you propose to implement your intentions?

[qayak]

I have a question specifically for qayak, but anyone else feel free to chime in as well.

Could you give us an example of legislation you would support that would protect the victims of the sort of child abuse you have described?

I would support pretty much any initiative.

What I worry about is that there seem to be people who are actually sufficiently upset about it that they would use government power in opposition to my plans.

Why would you worry about other people having a different opinion?

I would prefer that governments not have to take action. That religions and religious people realize the folly of teaching lies as truth to children . However, they seem to be incapable of it, so . . . :con2:

[Elind]

Beyond that, though, this talk of religious education as child abuse scares me. I would not want to live in a world where that view became mainstream.

The first time I saw religious "indoctrination" (education is far too flattering a term) called child abuse was reading Dawkins, and I hadn't quite thought of it that way before, in spite of being a long time atheist; which illustrates how we become set in social conventions that we take for granted. Speaking only for myself of course.

However it is a fact of our biology, nature and much more that breeding and child raising is something we evolved to do long before religion became defined as a concept. So, I would agree that whatever our personal views on the issue, that is not something we can or should legislate against without first changing our nature.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.

3- it is your right to assault your children.

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.

I think this should be expanded to offer real freedom of religion by insisting children wait until they are old enough to make up their own minds.

We'll honestly I'm not saying I really endorse any of the positions I've stated, I'm just trying to stir the pot to see what people think about this complicated issue. Nice post.

LLH

[six7s]

What is the minimum a child must be taught?

Minimum: taught to think, critically

This optimises the maximum in all fields

Easier said than done of course, especially when the teacher (at school or home) doesn't have the skills themselves and/or the kids have been fooled into accepting that thinking and believing are synonymous

[six7s]

How are children supposed to make up their own minds about their faith if they are being force fed only one side of the argument from a young age?

If they are being force fed only one side of the argument, then the force-feeders either don't want or know how to facilitate children making up their own minds

It's not easy to provide balance... young kids need the security that comes with trusting that their parents know all the answers

[ponderingturtle]

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.


This is a right in many places. I do remember reading that in california you have this right, but if you kill your kids with it, then you get charged with a crime.

[ponderingturtle]

1 - No. But it is your right to decide who minor daughter is allowed to see, when and where. You can, for example, insist on chaparoning your daughter on all her dates and never allowing her to be alone with a male. It's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

2 - No. If the medical condition is one where there is known treatment that has a high probability of success, parental refusal to consent can result in their losing custody. But parents can refuse generally accepted health care such as vaccinations if they choose. This is a really dicey area in our society right now, deciding when a course of treatment is necessary enough to justify taking custody away from parents. Again, it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.


You are speaking in far to general terms. Each state has different views on these events, and in some states they are allowed to varying degrees.

There is no general answer as to when children can legaly marry adults and what those getting married would need, and what medical treatment can by denied to children.

[Meadmaker]

You are speaking in far to general terms. Each state has different views on these events, and in some states they are allowed to varying degrees.

There is no general answer as to when children can legaly marry adults and what those getting married would need, and what medical treatment can by denied to children.

But there is a general answer as to how often children die in the United States as a result of withheld medical treatment. The answer is damned near never, and if it is discovered, every court in the land would immediately say that the treatment must be provided.

[qayak]

But there is a general answer as to how often children die in the United States as a result of withheld medical treatment. The answer is damned near never, and if it is discovered, every court in the land would immediately say that the treatment must be provided.

You have claimed that parents should be allowed to raise their children in any religion, some religions have these practices and the courts have ruled against the parents. So, what you are saying is that you disagree with the courts ruling and those parents should be allowed to let those children die?

Have you seen the video Jesus Camp? There are millions of children being indoctrinated like that all over the world. Your children may receive a far milder form of it but, in my view, if it takes legislation that completely denies you the right to teach your kid religion in order to stop the things that go on in that video, so be it.

The harm to your child caused by you not being allowed to teach them about god is, after all, zero. Your children would be free to jump in with both feet when they are mature enough to decide for themselves, along with eveery other kid in the world.

And that is the problem with moderates, they allow fundamentalists to hide behind freedom of religion as they deny that freedom to the most vulnerable members of society. If moderates actually had a moderating effect on religions, there would be no isssue. Unfortunately, when it comes to religions, moderates allow the growth of fundamentalists.

[mijopaalmc]

To the people who think religion is child abuse:

Is there any religion in which you think is appropriate to raise a child?

[ponderingturtle]

But there is a general answer as to how often children die in the United States as a result of withheld medical treatment. The answer is damned near never, and if it is discovered, every court in the land would immediately say that the treatment must be provided.

Prove it

There are American states in which Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists who kill their children by denying them lifesaving blood transfusions or other medical procedures can escape the consequences of their crime by pleading "freedom of religion." Currently, thirty-nine states' civil codes include religious exemptions from child abuse or neglect charges, while thirty-one allow a religious defense to a criminal charge.1 In a study of 172 child deaths where medical treatment was withheld on religious grounds, it was found that 140 children would have had at least a 90 percent likelihood of survival with medical care

Link (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/harwood_23_03.htm)

Sure now and then there have been cases and they have passed laws in some states makeing it a crime to let your child die like this, but that is not universal.

[ponderingturtle]

To the people who think religion is child abuse:

Is there any religion in which you think is appropriate to raise a child?

What does the philosophical positions of a religion do for a child? The socail structure of a religion is not nessacarily harmful, but when is theistic philosophical arguements and such beneficial?

[qayak]

To the people who think religion is child abuse:

Is there any religion in which you think is appropriate to raise a child?

Why would anyone want to bring a child up with lies and make believe stories when the truth is so much more interesting and empowering.

[mijopaalmc]

Why would anyone want to bring a child up with lies and make believe stories when the truth is so much more interesting and empowering.

And what lies would those be?

[tsg]

And what lies would those be?

It might be easier if you listed the religious beliefs that are true, if only because it would be much shorter.

[qayak]

And what lies would those be?

1- That believers are good, non-believers are bad and there is a sky jockey who favours the good and punishes the bad.

2- That all types of suffering on this Earth are the result of a kind and loving god, who we can never hope to understand, and that those who believe will have an eternal life, in a fictitious place, grovelling at the feet of this god.

3- That the bible is anything more than the ignorant beliefs of desert dwelling goat herders.

4- That it is a virtue to blindly believe in these lies.

5- That religious beliefs are an acceptable substitute for real knowledge.

Is that enough or should we ask others to add to the list?

[mijopaalmc]

1- That believers are good, non-believers are bad and there is a sky jockey who favours the good and punishes the bad.

2- That all types of suffering on this Earth are a result of a kind and loving god and that those who believe will have an eternal life, in a fictitious place, grovelling at the feet of this god.

3- That the bible is anything more than the ignorant beliefs of desert dwelling goat herders.

4- That it is a virtue to blindly believe in these lies.

5- That religious beliefs are an acceptable substitute for real knowledge.

Is that enough or should we ask others to add to the list?

Need I remind you that not all religions (nor all denominations within religions) believe these things?

What is it with the "religion is child abuse" crowd and gross generalizations?

[qayak]

Need I remind you that not all religions (nor all denominations within religions) believe these things?

What is it with the "religion is child abuse" crowd and gross generalizations?

Of course, YOUR religion would never be so foolish as to believe this nonsense!! :rolleyes:

I'll tell you what. You pick the religion and I will tell you the lies they believe in.

And while your at it, can you start the list TSG suggested? Maybe just start with your own religion and let us know what it believes that is actually correct. It should be a very short list, then you can get onto the other religions.

Or, even more balanced, you pick the religion, give me one major tenet of theirs that is true and I will give yu a list of the lies they preach.

[mijopaalmc]

Of course, YOUR religion would never be so foolish as to believe this nonsense!! :rolleyes:

This is news to me!!!! Atheism is a religion?

You really should pay attention to what people say about their personal beliefs. You would have learned that I am an atheist.

[qayak]

This is news to me!!!! Atheism is a religion?

You really should pay attention to what people say about their personal beliefs. You would have learned that I am an atheist.

People tend to speak louder with their actions than words. It is easy to lie using words, a lot harder using actions.

[Meadmaker]

1- That believers are good, non-believers are bad and there is a sky jockey who favours the good and punishes the bad.

2- That all types of suffering on this Earth are the result of a kind and loving god, who we can never hope to understand, and that those who believe will have an eternal life, in a fictitious place, grovelling at the feet of this god.

3- That the bible is anything more than the ignorant beliefs of desert dwelling goat herders.

4- That it is a virtue to blindly believe in these lies.

5- That religious beliefs are an acceptable substitute for real knowledge.

Is that enough or should we ask others to add to the list?


I sat through three hours of services this morning and afternoon, and the only one of these five that was mentioned was number 3.

(Although, for those of you who read the "Atheist and the Marine" thread, the joke about the bear is funnier in Hebrew.)

[mijopaalmc]

People tend to speak louder with their actions than words. It is easy to lie using words, a lot harder using actions.

I'm sorry. Have we met in person?

Defending religion doesn't make me a believer.

[Meadmaker]

I can understand why people want less religion in the world. It makes sense to me. However, I can't see why they think that government intervention to achieve this goal will work out so well.

There've been plenty of folks who decided that the world would be a better place if only there were fewer Jews in the world, and it never really seemed better afterwards.

[qayak]

I sat through three hours of services this morning and afternoon, and the only one of these five that was mentioned was number 3.

(Although, for those of you who read the "Atheist and the Marine" thread, the joke about the bear is funnier in Hebrew.)

:confused:

If they mentioned #3, they mentioned all the rest and many, many more. It's all in the bible whether they specifically say it in every BS session . . . Ooooops! I mean "sermon."

[Meadmaker]

Prove it



Link (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/harwood_23_03.htm)

Sure now and then there have been cases and they have passed laws in some states makeing it a crime to let your child die like this, but that is not universal.

Which is why you read about it all the time. A kid dies, and the parents say, "Sure, medicine could have saved her, but it was God's will that she die. What good would it be to let them live if it makes God angry?" You hear it again and again and again. Day after day. For example, there was that case.....uh....well, I don't remember exactly, but it happens all the time.

[Meadmaker]

:confused:

If they mentioned #3, they mentioned all the rest and many, many more. It's all in the bible whether they specifically say it in every BS session . . . Ooooops! I mean "sermon."

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[qayak]

I'm sorry. Have we met in person?

Defending religion doesn't make me a believer.

What would it make you? Hmmmmmmmm. . . . you will tolerate the teaching of lies to children, the bigotry and hatred spread by religion, the misery religions have wrought and you argue with someone who thinks all these things are bad and should not be tolerated.

Believer or simple apologist?

What's worse, someone who bashes gays or someone who defends gay bashers?

[qayak]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

And aren't religions a perfect example of that?

[mijopaalmc]

What would it make you? Hmmmmmmmm. . . . you will tolerate the teaching of lies to children, the bigotry and hatred spread by religion, the misery religions have wrought and you argue with someone who thinks all these things are bad and should not be tolerated.

Believer or simple apologist?

What's worse, someone who bashes gays or someone who defends gay bashers?

You seemed have missed the many times I have said that lying to children is wrong. However, it is not child abuse, and you are trying manipulate people's emotions by equating it thusly. Furthermore, you are deliberately lying about what I said. I never said I tolerated the things you said I tolerated. The sum total religion is not things that you listed. Thus defending religion is not necessarily defending those things.

[bokonon]

I've seen "Jesus Camp," and the new HBO documentary, "Friends of God" (can't help thinking the acronym of that one is sadly ironic). They deeply depress me, but I'm not in favor of a government crackdown on religion. Frankly, such a notion is not only unconstitutional, but completely impractical.

While I wish people weren't so irrational as to believe in sky daddies, ghost whisperers, astrologers, faith healers, creationism, and fortune cookies, I have to acknowledge that there is enough slack built into modern society that such beliefs don't generally diminish the quality of life for the believers. If it brings them a sense of community and a support system, that may more than compensate for the delusion that evolution is a lie. One's position on evolution is irrelevant for most paying occupations these days, like it or not. The fundies who home-school their children that evolution is a lie, but you need to be able to repeat some of those lies to have your education certified, have probably not done the children any irreparable harm.

I think that as long as we can keep "teach the controversy" out of the public schools, I'm willing to let the evangelicals with 12 kids teach them nonsense. It's not a perfect system, but I have more fear of a government that could eavesdrop on dinner conversations to the extent that it could enforce a "no religious instruction" law than I do of a few (or a few million) people who mock evolution.

Yes, it's true that the vast majority of them, upon reaching adulthood, are beyond the reach of reason where reason conflicts with faith. I think it's also true that a person can be irrational enough to reject evolution without seriously considering the evidence, and still be able to ring up my purchases at Wal-Mart, or even design a bridge that won't fall down.

Bottom line, I think the best course is to oppose them with facts and reason rather than legislation.

[qayak]

You seemed have missed the many times I have said that lying to children is wrong. However, it is not child abuse, and you are trying manipulate people's emotions by equating it thusly.

And you seem to have missed the many times I have rejected that apologist position as being weak and cowardly.

Governments create laws making it illegal to misrepresent the truth all the time. Is it more abusive for a used car salesman to lie about the car you are interested in being in an accident, or a real estate broker, lying about the condition of the property they are selling, or someone falsely claiming to be a police officer than it is for children to be told the lies in the name of someone else's religion? At least a adults can (or should be able to) discern for themselves whether the car has in fact been in an accident, or the house is sound or the cop is a cop. However, children are given no chance. They are taught the lies as truth from the moment they are born.

Lying leads to abuse and nowhere is that more apparent than with religions and it is infinitely worse that they lie to children.

You think religions are special and deserve to be exempted from government oversight. Further, you think it is a position I should respect. Sorry, I don't.

I think it sacrifices children to avoid a confrontation that is long overdue.

[qayak]

They deeply depress me, but I'm not in favor of a government crackdown on religion. Frankly, such a notion is not only unconstitutional, but completely impractical.

Isn't it freakin' hilarious how many people will support an ammendment to the constitution when it bans gay marriage (which hurts no one by the way) but won';t support an amendment banning the systematic abuse of children at the hands of religions.

Oh . . . . sorry! It's the same people voting in both cases. They just love to push their lies down other people's throats, don't they?

[six7s]

There've been plenty of folks who decided that the world would be a better place if only there were fewer Jews in the world, and it never really seemed better afterwards.

True, but the aim was simply to make more room for a particular brand of woo

[bokonon]

Isn't it freakin' hilarious how many people will support an ammendment to the constitution when it bans gay marriage (which hurts no one by the way) but won';t support an amendment banning the systematic abuse of children at the hands of religions.

Oh . . . . sorry! It's the same people voting in both cases. They just love to push their lies down other people's throats, don't they?
If I'm a part of your "they," you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't have a problem with gay marriage, so I wouldn't support an amendment to the constitution banning it.

I also wouldn't support an amendment making it a crime for parents to read their children fairy tales at bedtime.

[qayak]

I also wouldn't support an amendment making it a crime for parents to read their children fairy tales at bedtime.

You don't have to. You just have to support people's right to freedom of religion. That right there is all that is necessary to stop parents from indoctrinating children with lies about sky daddies.

[Oliver]

Those religious anti-capitalistic, sexist, child abusing Nazis ... I'm speechless:

http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/lambuelmazesolution.html

[bokonon]

You don't have to. You just have to support people's right to freedom of religion. That right there is all that is necessary to stop parents from indoctrinating children with lies about sky daddies.
Maybe on Bizarro world. Here in 'Merica, freedom of religion doesn't stop parents from passing on their religion any more than freedom of assembly means the kids are free to go to their friend's house to play video games over their parents' objections. The right to bear arms doesn't apply to children either, last time I checked.

[six7s]

Those religious anti-capitalistic, sexist, child abusing Nazis ... I'm speechless:

http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/lambuelmazesolution.html

Baaa!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1760246f5ac7b3370d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8482)

[qayak]

Maybe on Bizarro world. Here in 'Merica, freedom of religion doesn't stop parents from passing on their religion any more than freedom of assembly means the kids are free to go to their friend's house to play video games over their parents' objections. The right to bear arms doesn't apply to children either, last time I checked.

Well, no wonder there are so many religious cranks in 'merica.

[Meadmaker]

You don't have to. You just have to support people's right to freedom of religion. That right there is all that is necessary to stop parents from indoctrinating children with lies about sky daddies.

It's curious that so few constitutional scholars and even fewer judges share this view. Indeed the prevailing legal opinion is exactly contrary to your opinion. Obviously, more education is needed.

[tsg]

What is it with the "religion is child abuse" crowd and gross generalizations?

What is it with these apologists and their beliefs that one person speaks for all?

ETA: In case the irony is lost on you, "broad brush" is two words I never want to see you type again.

[mijopaalmc]

What is it with these apologists and their beliefs that one person speaks for all?

ETA: In case the irony is lost on you, "broad brush" is two words I never want to see you type again.

So you are claiming that the "religion is child abuse" meme is not widespread on the board?

Notice how I didn't say "atheists"; I said "'religion is child abuse' crowd", meaning nothing beyond the the people who explicitly say "religion is child abuse".

[tsg]

So you are claiming that the "religion is child abuse" meme is not widespread on the board?

No, I'm not.

Notice how I didn't say "atheists"; I said "'religion is child abuse' crowd", meaning nothing beyond the the people who explicitly say "religion is child abuse".

I didn't say anything about atheists. Your broad brush just seems to get wider and wider. The flaw in your logic is specifically that you assume qayak's statements represent all of the "religion is child abuse" crowd.

And I'm still waiting for the list of religious beliefs that are true.

[mijopaalmc]

I didn't say anything about atheists. Your broad brush just seems to get wider and wider. The flaw in your logic is specifically that you assume qayak's statements represent all of the "religion is child abuse" crowd.

So what does "religion is child abuse" mean to you?

I was also commenting on the fact that I wasn't expanding my comments to all atheists.

[tsg]

So what does "religion is child abuse" mean to you?

I never said it was. Broad brush again?

I was also commenting on the fact that I wasn't expanding my comments to all atheists.

That wasn't the point. You were expanding qayak's comments to all "religion is child abuse" proponents.

[Slimething]

You would have learned that I am an atheist.

Defending religion doesn't make me a believer.

No, it makes you a hypocrite. :eek:

ETA: If it makes you feel better, mijopaalmc, I'm not calling you a hypocrite. That's because I don't believe that you're an atheist. [edited]

This might be a good opportunity to review your membership agreement (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2869263#post2869263) with special attention to being civil and polite.

[six7s]

You don't have to. You just have to support people's right to freedom of religion. That right there is all that is necessary to stop parents from indoctrinating children with lies about sky daddies.It's curious that so few constitutional scholars and even fewer judges share this view. Indeed the prevailing legal opinion is exactly contrary to your opinion.

@Meadmaker: Is the level of acadmic and legislator focus on the 'indoctrination of children' in your country really sufficient to suggest they have collectively formed a 'prevailing legal opinion' that is 'exactly contrary to [qayak's] opinion'?

I ask simply because I guess not

If I'm guessing wrong, please enlighten my ignorance

I am aware that most countries are obliged (not legally bound) to honour the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Again, I'm guessing that this would preclude much 'reinventing of the wheel' and free academics and legislators to focus on other, more contentious issues

-----------

And I'm still waiting for the list of religious beliefs that are true.

Stand by, to get ready, to make yourself comfortable, in anticipation of an awfully long wait

Rewriting all historical records can't be acheived quickly y'know... no matter how broad a brush is employed

Tick

Tock

[articulett]

I can't believe he's stalking people accusing them of the "all religion" thing. You can't say anything bad about religion or express an opinion on this topic without mijo demanding his damn APA report.

I did point out that if we're damning all religion any time we mention any religion, then he's an apologist for ALL religion no matter how vile. But as you see-- irony is lost on the pedantic "know it alls".

He's not only NOT an atheist... he's also a creationist while denying he is such. Instead of examining his inconsistencies, he's going to make everyone who reveals his true nature into the bad guys just as he will do so to everyone who dares say anything bad about "faith". Whatever memes this dude is infected with, he's got it bad.

[mijopaalmc]

I never said it was. Broad brush again?

That's not what I said, and you know it. I asked what "religion is child abuse" means to when you here it said, regardless if you think that it's true.

Now, would you kindly answer the question?

That wasn't the point. You were expanding qayak's comments to all "religion is child abuse" proponents.

Again, you must not be reading the same board I am. articulett and others have spent a vast amount of time patting each other on the back while they vituperate against religion. Now, I admit after the twentieth or thirtieth post of their anti-religion screed, I started to tune them out because I felt that while it might of some use to someone to make detailed distinctions between each of their positions, it was essentially splitting hairs. This is why I like to know what you think when they say that religion is child abuse because it would be nice to have a fresh perspective in what they think.

[mijopaalmc]

No, it makes you a hypocrite. :eek:

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I think that you are applying yet another very narrow definition of what an atheist should believe. As we live in a societies that grant wide liberties to individuals of legal majority, I think that we have a stake in defending people's right to exercise these liberties. When I defend religion, I defend the right to exercise these liberties and not the beliefs themselves. It's like the Supreme Court's upholding the right of the National Socialist Party to march through a neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois predominately populated by Holocaust survivors upheld the NSA's right to peaceably assemble and speak freely without necessarily supporting the ideas expressed in that assembly and speech.

Do you see the difference?

If you don't then I completely understand why you insist that I am lying when I say that those who defend religion are not really atheists.

[chillzero]

Please stop personalising this discussion. If this thread cannot remain on topic, and addressign the argument instead of individual posters, then it will be assigned moderated status.

[Beth]

Have you seen the video Jesus Camp? There are millions of children being indoctrinated like that all over the world. Your children may receive a far milder form of it but, in my view, if it takes legislation that completely denies you the right to teach your kid religion in order to stop the things that go on in that video, so be it. This is an attitude I find profoundly disturbing. Like Bokonon, I think the effect of such legislation would be far worse than the indoctrination you are trying to prevent. It's like putting the welcome mat out for Big Brother.
The harm to your child caused by you not being allowed to teach them about god is, after all, zero. This is not a fact, but a value judgement. While in your opinion, the harm may be zero, it is not considered zero harm in the opinion of the people who would be affected by it. In fact, many would consider it a grievous harm to them, their children, and their family. I am always suspicious of those who would justify harming others under the claim that what they are proposing isn't going to be harmful while those who would be affected strongly disagree.

And that is the problem with moderates, they allow fundamentalists to hide behind freedom of religion as they deny that freedom to the most vulnerable members of society. If moderates actually had a moderating effect on religions, there would be no isssue. Unfortunately, when it comes to religions, moderates allow the growth of fundamentalists. I don't buy this argument. I consider much like the argument about how our congress shouldn't be holding hearings on how the various spy organizations in the U.S. operate to fight terrorism in order to make sure that they do not go too far and violate the civil rights of American in the process because open and frank discussion of such will provide some aid to terrorists. In both cases, I feel the principles which are being defended are of greater value to my society. I think the benefits of living in a society with such freedoms more than mitigates any aid it provides the extremists.

1- That believers are good, non-believers are bad and there is a sky jockey who favours the good and punishes the bad.

2- That all types of suffering on this Earth are the result of a kind and loving god, who we can never hope to understand, and that those who believe will have an eternal life, in a fictitious place, grovelling at the feet of this god.

3- That the bible is anything more than the ignorant beliefs of desert dwelling goat herders.

4- That it is a virtue to blindly believe in these lies.

5- That religious beliefs are an acceptable substitute for real knowledge.



I was raised in a family that went to a church that taught all those things. Most of my extended family still does. I hated that church and left it the day I moved out of my parents house, but I fail to see how it qualifies as abuse. Explain, if you can, how this was abusive to me.

[Slimething]

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I think that you are applying yet another very narrow definition of what an atheist should believe.

:confused: An atheist is someone without a god.

As we live in a societies that grant wide liberties to individuals of legal majority, I think that we have a stake in defending people's right to exercise these liberties. When I defend religion, I defend the right to exercise these liberties and not the beliefs themselves.

This statement is stunningly ignorant on two fronts. First, religion has been a primary tool used by governments and NGOs to deny liberty throughout history. The free exercise of religion entails the commesurate reduction in other's liberties. Secondly, the "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy is evident in this attitude. Ignorance of the damage that religion does to modern societies, democratic or otherwise, is palapble. If you have trouble seeing the inherent contradiction in your attitude, your education would greatly benefit from picking up a history book.

It's like the Supreme Court's upholding the right of the National Socialist Party to march through a neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois predominately populated by Holocaust survivors upheld the NSA's right to peaceably assemble and speak freely without necessarily supporting the ideas expressed in that assembly and speech.

Do you see the difference?

Yes, absolutely, I see a difference. The SCOTUS was upholding a group's rights to demonstrate an unpopular belief. A demonstration, like a child's tantrum, is effective only if one pays attention to the idiocies expressed. Your viewpoint, on the other hand, is to protect the rights of the majority against a minority. That's a boondoggle and has little resemblance to the Court's actions in that case. I couldn't even imagine why anyone would think these two themes are related in any way.

If you don't then I completely understand why you insist that I am lying when I say that those who defend religion are not really atheists.

See above. Perhaps you aren't lying. Maybe what we're dealing with here is a complete ignorance of religion's historical role in depriving people of ther liberties.

You've been challenged to prepare a list of examples where religion teaches fact. I am now including a challenge for you to list all the atheists holding elected office in the US. The denial of full participation in the democracy I live in by the religious is not a whimsical fact that sprang from nothingness. You are arguing to keep the present system in place that effectively denies people like you (ha!) your rights.

[Meadmaker]

@Meadmaker: Is the level of acadmic and legislator focus on the 'indoctrination of children' in your country really sufficient to suggest they have collectively formed a 'prevailing legal opinion' that is 'exactly contrary to [qayak's] opinion'?

I ask simply because I guess not

If I'm guessing wrong, please enlighten my ignorance


OK. In the US, judicial opinion is pretty unanimous that interfering with religious education, whether you call it education, indoctrination, brainwashing, or any other term you choose, is an unconstitutional restriction on the free exercise of religion.

There is some dispute on whether merely requiring compulsory education of any sort can be an impingement on the right of free exercise. Prevailing opinion is that it is not, but even there you have the case Dawkins cited in "The God Delusion", in which the Amish family won the suit in which the state was trying to compel them to send their high school aged kid to school. Dawkins didn't like it, and I would agree with him at least to a certain extent, but the Supreme Court did not.

[Meadmaker]

You have claimed that parents should be allowed to raise their children in any religion, some religions have these practices and the courts have ruled against the parents. So, what you are saying is that you disagree with the courts ruling and those parents should be allowed to let those children die?

No. That's not what I'm saying. In fact, I believe I said the opposite. The law protects their bodies. Their minds are fair game.

The harm to your child caused by you not being allowed to teach them about god is, after all, zero.

I beg to differ. What is at stake here is not simply God, my god, your god, his god, or no gods, but the relationship between parent and child. When the government interferes with that relationship, there is a great deal of potential harm to the child, to the parents, and to society. You'll have to show me a lot worse than "Jesus Camp" before I say that we need to have the government step in and fix parents' mistakes for them.

[articulett]

I don't think legislation is likely to help, but I do think humor, mocking, public discussion, such as this, consciousness raising, media shining light on the lunacy (ala Jesus Camp),and an evolving sense of decency will help raise the consciousness of the zeitgeist-- and public schools. Critical thinking, actual scientific knowledge, humor are some of humanities greatest gifts we can share with each other. Destroy the meme that faith is a good way of knowing something. Help kids see religion as a backwards notion that some adults can't help be inflicted with-- but let them know they can escape it.

I don't think we can afford to have masses of children growing up so brainwashed--how many more Fred Phelps or Pat Robertsons can the world bear? And, let's face, this kind of thinking stifles smart kids--scares them into silence at the hands of bullies and the holier than thou. And it encourages the stupidest amongst us to breed the most spreading their their stupid genes into ripe meme vectors to make more minions for whatever army they've been told are the "good guys" in the "life test" where they will get to live happily ever after for believing the right unbelievable story and proclaiming despite embarrassment.

If nothing else, the questions need to be thrown on the table-- it's the key to letting others escape the brain washing isn't it? No notion can be beyond questioning and all people claiming to have divine truths ought to be prodded mercilessly to show us their evidence.

[qayak]

Their minds are fair game.

And that is about as morally bankrupt a statement as I have ever heard.

Their minds are fair game only to people who would abuse them. To the people who really care, their mental safety is just as important as their physical.

I beg to differ. What is at stake here is not simply God, my god, your god, his god, or no gods, but the relationship between parent and child. When the government interferes with that relationship, there is a great deal of potential harm to the child, to the parents, and to society. You'll have to show me a lot worse than "Jesus Camp" before I say that we need to have the government step in and fix parents' mistakes for them.

My mistake is believing that when the Constitution or the UN Declaration says: "EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO . . . " That it actually means EVERYONE! Of course, it did take quite awhile for the less enlightened majority to understand that blacks, natives, immigrants and women were included in the "everyone" but eventually they figured it out.

ETA: Of course, they only did so when the courts told them they had to.

And the comparison to the right to bear arms is absurd and completely unthought out by whomever used it. We do not allow children to own guns because those guns are a threat to others. As a precaution we expect the person handling them to be mature and responsible. However, we do allow children to use guns when accompanied by a responsible adult.

This analogy is screwy unless you believe that children are too immature and irresponsible to THINK. And it is complete non-sense unless you believe that thinking, and reasoning, and being told the truth is a danger to anyone. If this is the way you feel about children, I am sorry for you and yours.

Your children do not belong to you. They are not your property. they are their own people with their own hopes and dreams. Why put such boring limitations on their lives by teaching them lies as truth. Teach them the real wonders of the universe and they won't have time to dwell on the absurd beliefs that limited their ancestors.

[tsg]

That's not what I said, and you know it. I asked what "religion is child abuse" means to when you here it said, regardless if you think that it's true.

Now, would you kindly answer the question?

No. I am not going to debate the color of red herrings. What I think "religion is child abuse" means is immaterial and an effort to dodge the issue.

Again, you must not be reading the same board I am. articulett and others have spent a vast amount of time patting each other on the back while they vituperate against religion. Now, I admit after the twentieth or thirtieth post of their anti-religion screed, I started to tune them out because I felt that while it might of some use to someone to make detailed distinctions between each of their positions, it was essentially splitting hairs.

Don't underestimate yourself. You tuned them out as soon as they said anything against religion. Waiting until the twentieth post would have required you to actually read what they said.

This is why I like to know what you think when they say that religion is child abuse because it would be nice to have a fresh perspective in what they think.

What I think they mean has nothing to do with the argument. Ask them what they mean.

Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed your hypocrisy of accusing atheists of painting religion with a broad brush while doing the very same thing yourself with "religion is child abuse" proponents.

[articulett]

I want to add, that I never officially said religion is child abuse... or if I did, it was taken out of context like it was with Dawkins... but I do feel all religions are lies dressed up as supposed "higher truths"... and I think it's sick to tell kids that their eternity depends on them believing the right unbelievable story and that doubting and dissent will lead to eternal damnation. I think it's also sick to encourage them to trust liars while ignoring scientists, evidence, and those who would tell them the truth and take great care and time showing them the amazing amount of evidence we have accumulated in the world.

I think the nutty meme that faith and "belief" make people good or righteous is VERY disturbing and untrue. The facts show that secular societies function better and as religiosity increases in various areas, so too does societal dysfunction--particularly the stuff religion tells us it prevents. Of course, religion is used to not being questioned or having to provide evidence for its claims. And non-believers are used to having everything they say judged as if it came from demons they don't believe in.

Religions, like the invisible gods they worship and the gurus that rake in the allegiance and cash, get the credit for stuff they never do and promises they cannot keep, while the mere mortals that plod through time actually changing the world with true and useful knowledge are demonized. You do not need religion to be moral or happy or please the invisible creator of the universe. People trust religion which promotes these lies. For that reason, it does not deserve my respect, and I think it's better not to inflict it on children as some "truth". They are beliefs-- just like the myths that came before. To proffer them as "higher truths" is abusive. Changing the topic to demonize those who speak these facts... while ignoring the facts themselves... is immoral in my book

[qayak]

My post here is kind of rambling. Get over it.

I was raised in a family that went to a church that taught all those things. Most of my extended family still does. I hated that church and left it the day I moved out of my parents house, but I fail to see how it qualifies as abuse. Explain, if you can, how this was abusive to me.

I have a friend who was molested by her father from the age of 11 - 15. She hated it and got out of it the day she moved out of her parent's home.

Does this also NOT qualify as abuse? Afterall, she doesn't see it as being abusive. Can you explain how it really was abusive to her?

Many children do not see the physical violence they suffered at the hands of their parents as abusive either. Are we to say that physical violence to children is okay as long as, in the future, they don't see it as abusive? How would we be able to tell which ones are going to see it as abusive so we know to charge their parents?

Does your belief that your indoctrination was not abuse mean that everyone else who suffers the same or worse, must see it the same way or can we assume that you are one of the ones that managed to overcome it while there are others who are unable to?

If a child is hit by a car and suffers a brain injury, is that injury any less of an issue just because that child managed to grow up and get a job or because it is hard to know what the real effect was? Perhaps that injury prevented the child from reaching their full potential. That is one of the big issues here. How much does religious indoctrination prevent a child from reaching their full potential. Admittedly, I don't know and I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to other people's lives, so I say religious indoctrination of any child is bad. However, you may feel that simple making it to adulthood with all the same fears, beliefs in lies and limitations that go along with the religion of your parent's, is good enough. But how do you know what that child's true potential is if it is stolen from them before they are 5 years old?

[articulett]

What horrible thing is going to happen because of the "religion is child abuse" meme? Are people going to (gasp) talk about it, instead of mindlessly just inflicting it on children because it's supposed to be good for something or necessary somehow or "just in case" they might suffer forever if one brand turns out to be "true"? If religion isn't abusive, it really has nothing to worry about from this meme, right? Or perhaps the faith promoters are afraid that those they have demonized because they believe differently (or--for shame--not at all) will come back and shine the light of judgment back on them revealing them for the naked emperor "man behind the curtain" that they are.

The meme I want to get rid of that rationalists are "bad people"-- I'm all for promoting an open public discussion and debate as to whether religion is child abuse and when do we get a right as a society who will be impacted by these children to speak up? I'm angry that there are laws that protect parents who deny medical treatment to children in the name of religion-- and I think filling their head with crap designed to "keep them from biting from the tree of knowledge" (i.e. learning facts) is clearly harmful, manipulative, and an abuse of fiduciary duty. It's on par with promoting racism and other kinds of bigotry and teaching kids the earth is flat and devils planted bones to fool people. Heck, let's tell them the mentally ill are possessed and secular society causes hurricanes and events like 9-11.

Beth and the other religious apologists are forever protect the big lie without ever discussing the fact that it is a lie or just how harmful it can be-- not just to the kids involved--but for the rest of us who have to share a planet with them. How many people can this planet support who think this world is a battleground for some unverifiable eternity?

And once you give up the right to not criticize one brand of fundamentalism in order for your preferred one not to undergo scrutiny, you give up the right to question them all--including the Madrases and other fundamentalist sects that teach their kids to fear and hate you. Faith is not a means to truth. It's a way of making trusting people into vessels of ready manipulation by whomever can convince them that they have "higher knowledge".

[Beth]

My post here is kind of rambling. Get over it.



I have a friend who was molested by her father from the age of 11 - 15. She hated it and got out of it the day she moved out of her parent's home.

Does this also NOT qualify as abuse? Afterall, she doesn't see it as being abusive. Can you explain how it really was abusive to her? I'll let you answer my question first. If you can provide me a satisfactory explanation as to how my being raised in a fundamentalist church was abusive, I'll return the favor by providing an answer for a similar question regarding sexual abuse. If you aren't willing to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

Many children do not see the physical violence they suffered at the hands of their parents as abusive either. Are we to say that physical violence to children is okay as long as, in the future, they don't see it as abusive? How would we be able to tell which ones are going to see it as abusive so we know to charge their parents? Again, I'll let you answer my question first.

Does your belief that your indoctrination was not abuse mean that everyone else who suffers the same or worse, must see it the same way No. or can we assume that you are one of the ones that managed to overcome it while there are others who are unable to? No. First you need to estalish that such indoctrination is abusive.

If a child is hit by a car and suffers a brain injury, is that injury any less of an issue just because that child managed to grow up and get a job or because it is hard to know what the real effect was? Yes, it's less of an issue than an injury that prevents the child from growing up or being able to get a job. If the driver's insurance must provide compensation for the injury, it certainly affects the amount of compensation.

Perhaps that injury prevented the child from reaching their full potential. That is one of the big issues here. How much does religious indoctrination prevent a child from reaching their full potential. Admittedly, I don't know and I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to other people's lives, so I say religious indoctrination of any child is bad. However, you may feel that simple making it to adulthood with all the same fears, beliefs in lies and limitations that go along with the religion of your parent's, is good enough. But how do you know what that child's true potential is if it is stolen from them before they are 5 years old?

You could make the same argument in regards to parents who allow their children to grow up eating junk food and never exercising. The consequences of poor diet and inadequate exercise are much better documented than those of religious indoctrination and will certainly interfer with them achieving their true potential and could be charactorized as stealing years from their lives. But most people see government restrictions in those areas as unnecessarily intrusive and causing far more harm than they would mitigate.

The problem with 'erring on the side of caution' when you are dealing with the child/parent relationship is that it is interpreted as sactioning governmental interference in the child/parent relationship (which is what you are advocating with legislation) without any regard to the damage that is done by the interference itself. I see such interference as very damaging, not only to the family and the parent/child relationship, but also to the precepts of freedom the U.S. is founded upon. There are cases where interference is sadly justified, but I don't think it is justifiable when it being advocated for such vague and poorly defined harm as not being able to reach their full potential.

So explain, if you can, how a religous upbringing, which included ALL the elements you listed and object to, was abusive to me.

[slingblade]

No offense taken. I seriously thought everyone would agree with that statement. Do you believe there are SHOULD be any minimum standards of education for children? How about reading/writing? Or even the ability to speak? The tying of shoes? How to dress yourself? How to use the bathroom? Anything?

LLH

I'm still reading the thread, but I wanted to jump in here.

There ARE minimum standards in the U.S. in education. Each state has its own Standards (yes, with a capital S), and each teacher is required to follow those standards.

Lesson plans must be written which enumerate the standards covered in the lesson. If students are not performing well, an administrator can then look at the plans taught and make sure standards are being followed.

In the U.S. (and I'm aware you're probably being facetious), public school teachers generally do not teach their students how to dress or defecate.

[qayak]

Well, I think in the unanswered question department, I have better grounds to demand answers before providing my own than any of the apologists in this thread. But, because I am being honest and trying to understand your point, I will answer yours first although few if any of mine have ever been addressed.

So explain, if you can, how a religous upbringing, which included ALL the elements you listed and object to, was abusive to me.

I can't because I don't read minds but I can tell you how it was abusive to my neighbour across the street.

It decided who she would marry.

It prevented her from going past highschool, in fact, it encouraged her to drop out, get married and have kids.

It prevented her from leaving an abusive marriage. ETA: It was also the justification fo rthe abuse.

It decided what, as a girl, she was allowed to do and say.

It took her years to undo the damage and she is still in therapy for it. She is 46.

The friend of mine, who was sexually abused, didn't suffer this much.

However, what decided it for me was the answer to a simple question: Would you raise your children in the same environment? Both my friends say "No ***** way!" and without having experienced either form of abuse, I can see why.

So, you may have to establish whether it was child abuse but that has been established for me. It fits the definition.

I do not question your right to not view your upbringing as abusive. I just object to your opinion that your view is the only one allowed by those who went through the same or worse. Your argument relies on the either or fallacy. It is groundless.

[slingblade]

I'll let you answer my question first. If you can provide me a satisfactory explanation as to how my being raised in a fundamentalist church was abusive, I'll return the favor by providing an answer for a similar question regarding sexual abuse. If you aren't willing to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?
Again, I'll let you answer my question first.
No. No. First you need to estalish that such indoctrination is abusive.

It can be. It was to me. But we are individual examples.

You provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing isn't necessarily harmful.

I provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing can be very harmful.

The truth lies in there somewhere. There are probably many truths. As many as there are individuals and upbringings.

[articulett]

It made Beth into an apologist with a double standard she is not able to see, and a brain that bypasses pertinent questions...

[bokonon]

What horrible thing is going to happen because of the "religion is child abuse" meme? Are people going to (gasp) talk about it, instead of mindlessly just inflicting it on children because it's supposed to be good for something or necessary somehow or "just in case" they might suffer forever if one brand turns out to be "true"? If religion isn't abusive, it really has nothing to worry about from this meme, right?
What good do you think can come from it? Virtually every religious person is going to dismiss it immediately as irrational hyperbole, and many non-religious people (myself included) will see it the same way. Unless you can make a strong case for denying parents the right to share the truth as they see it with their children, it just comes across as an unfounded appeal to emotion. It doesn't even work as a slogan for a bumper sticker.

OF COURSE religious parents are going to mindlessly express their beliefs to their children. Except for the growing group that home-schools out of fear that their children will be exposed to alternative beliefs, parents are not the only source of ideas. I consider it my duty to keep the ideas I express rational, so that those who value reason will consider them. While it may be possible to reach the children of fundamentalists by other means, I don't think the cause of reason is helped by irrational claims.

The meme I want to get rid of that rationalists are "bad people"-- I'm all for promoting and open public discussion and debate as to whether religion is child abuse and when do we get a right as a society who will be impacted by these children to speak up?
Everyone has the right to speak up, but I don't think the public image of rationalists is enhanced by shrill slogans.

I think filling [children's heads] with crap designed to "keep them from biting from the tree of knowledge" (i.e. learning facts) is clearly harmful, manipulative, and an abuse of fiduciary duty.
One can advocate critical thinking without demonising parents who are trying to do what they honestly see as best for their children.

It's on par with promoting racism and other kinds of bigotry and teaching kids the earth is flat and devils planted bones to fool people.
All of which are perfectly legal, and best countered by calmly, rationally, and persistently presenting an alternative viewpoint, buttressed by the best facts available.

Beth and the other religious apologists are forever protect the big lie without ever discussing the fact that it is a lie or just how harmful it can be-- not just to the kids involved--but for the rest of us who have to share a planet with them.
I don't think the best way to fight a big lie is with a little lie of your own.

I'm not happy that so many of my fellow Americans hold nutty beliefs, but I don't think society is in imminent danger of collapse because of them. To paraphrase Jefferson, if someone wants to believe Elvis is alive, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I'd prefer it if everyone sensibly believed everything I believed, but I don't think the best way to convince them is to pass a law declaring that henceforth MY truth is the only one that can be taught.

So far, we've been able to keep Intelligent Design out of the public school classroom, even in Kansas. That was done by presenting rational arguments, not by recklessly throwing labels around in the hope that they'd make people think.

[qayak]

I'm still reading the thread, but I wanted to jump in here.

There ARE minimum standards in the U.S. in education. Each state has its own Standards (yes, with a capital S), and each teacher is required to follow those standards.

Lesson plans must be written which enumerate the standards covered in the lesson. If students are not performing well, an administrator can then look at the plans taught and make sure standards are being followed.

In the U.S. (and I'm aware you're probably being facetious), public school teachers generally do not teach their students how to dress or defecate.

Well, I have a friend who teaches primary grades but she refuses to teach kindergarten anymore. The reason? Many of the kids who come into kindergarten are not toilet trained and still go in their pants. Not the first day because they are nervous but everyday because they have not been taught better.

Toilet training is actually a pre-req. to kindergarten along with dressing and shoe tying, but because of parental demands, all are overlooked. Apparently Little Johnny doesn't know enough to not soil his undies but he is ready for higher mathematics. :rolleyes:

Of course, this is Canada, your mileage may vary. :D

[slingblade]

Which is why I said "generally." There will be exceptions.

Here in the U.S., if toilet training is a pre-req for kindergarten, your child would not be admitted until he or she had fulfilled the pre-req. That's why it's called pre-requirement. I've heard, from elementary teaching students, of kids who were sent home and not permitted to come back until the Pampers and Pull-Ups were g.o.n.e.

Also, there are special ed (Sped) students who will never be able to toilet themselves, and the teacher/aide has to take care of that task.

So, generally.

[bokonon]

I can tell you how it was abusive to my neighbour across the street.

It decided who she would marry.

It prevented her from going past highschool, in fact, it encouraged her to drop out, get married and have kids.

It prevented her from leaving an abusive marriage.

It decided what, as a girl, she was allowed to do and say.

It took her years to undo the damage and she is still in therapy for it. She is 46.
I don't have a problem with statements like "Forcing a woman to marry someone against her will is abusive," or "Forcing a girl to drop out of high school, get married, and have kids is abusive."

Many fundamentalists do not exert such pressures, and many non-religious forms of culture do. I'd prefer to oppose the abusive practices themselves rather than condemning religion as though the one was the equivalent of the other.

[articulett]

Bokonen, I teach evolution, and I have to deal with quite a few children who believe that "science doesn't know anything". I'm not out spreading the religion is child abuse meme... I'm really ranting about the fact that anytime anyone suggests (on a skeptics forum mind you) that religion is bad for kids-- the apologists come out and start accusing such people as spreading the "religion is child abuse" meme. It was originally an extrapolation on Dawkins contention that it's weird to label kids by their parents religion... and that threatening kids with hell is abusive. There are things that are very abusive about religion, and it isn't true. I expect we should at least be able to talk about them on a skeptics forum without attack. Moreover, no matter what approach is taken in the public or the media... I don't think silence and walking on eggshells so as not to offend and making the subject "taboo" does much good at all-- it allows people to inflict damage without thinking--or worse, thinking that they are doing something great.

I like these guys: http://www.youtube.com/user/RationalResponse

I am quite sure that any approach I choose except "nothing" will be criticized--even just discussing my views on a skeptic forum. I'm used to that. I think everyone who dares to criticizes religion must be.

I think all approaches are worthwhile

[articulett]

I don't have a problem with statements like "Forcing a woman to marry someone against her will is abusive," or "Forcing a girl to drop out of high school, get married, and have kids is abusive."

Many fundamentalists do not exert such pressures, and many non-religious forms of culture do. I'd prefer to oppose the abusive practices themselves rather than condemning religion as though the one was the equivalent of the other.

What about telling people they are "saved" and better for believing the right unbelievable story and that others are damned for teaching evolution or being gay or not believing the right unbelievable story?

Sure, not all religions or religious people or practices are equally bad-- but faith has never been a good way to know anything true and many people think it's a requirement for morality. I don't care whether religion is or isn't child abuse or what peoples' opinions are on the subject anymore than they care about mine. I am just tired of the silencing of those who mention it's harms-- as though they want to chop of the heads of all those who indoctrinate kids while completely avoiding the real people doing the real harms mentioned in the OP.

[articulett]

Just because people criticize religion or faith it does not mean they are saying all faiths are equally bad or harmful... anymore than defending faith does not mean defending all faiths equally. We should have to use special language to avoid hurting feelings on a skeptics forum... and it does get tiresome that every time any creationist abuse is mentioned the "you can't say religion IS child abuse" people derail the thread, ignore the OP and demonize those who bring religion's abuses to the table for discussion.

[qayak]

I'd prefer to oppose the abusive practices themselves rather than condemning religion as though the one was the equivalent of the other.

Religions are the sum total of their abuses, nothing more.

(Unless someone can come up with that list of truths that religions teach like TSG has been asking for and I have been echoing.)

[qayak]

Just because people criticize religion or faith it does not mean they are saying all faiths are equally bad or harmful... anymore than defending faith does not mean defending all faiths equally. We should have to use special language to avoid hurting feelings on a skeptics forum... and it does get tiresome that every time any creationist abuse is mentioned the "you can't say religion IS child abuse" people derail the thread, ignore the OP and demonize those who bring religion's abuses to the table for discussion.

The other point is that for these people to admit their upbringing was abusive means they are critisizing their own parents. Most people are justifiably reluctant to do that.

However, like you say, that doesn't make the issue go away.

[Meadmaker]

This analogy is screwy unless you believe that children are too immature and irresponsible to THINK.

There's another way of looking at this, and it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. I believe that they are indeed capable of thinking. Therefore, I believe that I can tell them to pray, but I cannot force them to believe the prayers.

If ineed they are sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK, then there really isn't any danger in sending them to Jesus Camp, much less to my son's parochial school. My kid seems to be coming along quite well in the thinking department, as are the graduates of the school to which I spoke before sending him there.

[articulett]

Can we discuss the OP and whether there are benefits in general from religions in general that warrant us walking on eggshells to protect the feelings of those who might be offended that outweigh the harms in general?

Is it good to tell kids that faith is a good way to know stuff and then dump a bunch of faith based BS in their heads? I think the OP had a good point. No matter what the method, protecting religion from scrutiny, discussion, or hurt feelings isn't likely to do anything-- nor is telling those on a skeptics forum that they aren't helping "the cause". What is "the cause", and how do those where is the evidence that the method of those urging for different behavior helps this cause.

I think there are lots of avenues for reaching people. I think Discouraging or vilifying dissenters doesn't work to further the spread of discussion, truth, and critical thinking. If the apologists don't like what I say, they are free to mock me; I plan to do the same... the silence/deference thing hasn't worked.

[articulett]

The other point is that for these people to admit their upbringing was abusive means they are critisizing their own parents. Most people are justifiably reluctant to do that.

However, like you say, that doesn't make the issue go away.

I was raised Catholic... I have mixed feelings about it, but I don't feel "abused". My parents did the best I could, and what mother could stand the thought that her offspring might suffer eternally for not believing the right story. They had the belief that religion was necessary for morality and that "faith was good".

But I made a purposeful choice not to inflict it on my kid, and I don't regret it at all. I kept looking to see if there were some reason I had missed or if religious kids seemed to have an edge on morality, but I saw nothing that every made me regret my choice. And, my son is now 18, and damn fine moral "secular humanist" who thinks for himself and sounds so much more logical and likable than many of the adults on this forum from my perspective.

I think it's creepy to tell a smart and trusting kid that their eternity depends on them "believing" a certain story in the right way. Really creepy. Wrong. ETERNITY. It's impossible to make yourself believe something so incredible except by forcing yourself not to think.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

...And, my son is now 18, and damn fine moral "secular humanist" who thinks for himself and sounds so much more logical and likable than many of the adults on this forum from my perspective...

My Mom thinks I'm great too:D

[Beth]

I can't because I don't read minds Then I'll give you the same answer to your question regarding your sexually abused friend. I can't because I don't read minds However, if you would like to elaborate on why the teachings you mentioned should be considered abusive even when the 'victim' does not, then I'll elaborate on why incest can be considered abusive even if the victim does not.

but I can tell you how it was abusive to my neighbour across the street. It decided who she would marry. It prevented her from going past highschool, in fact, it encouraged her to drop out, get married and have kids. It prevented her from leaving an abusive marriage. ETA: It was also the justification fo rthe abuse. Telling about your friends and neighbors does a lot to explain why you feel the way you do, but it doesn't support your argument. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to justify the drastic measures you are advocating to remedy what many do not even percieve as a wrong to their children but a duty.

Why not take smaller, less intrusive steps such as preventing parents from deciding who their minor children will marry and stopping people from dropping out of school?

It decided what, as a girl, she was allowed to do and say. This is not abuse. This is something that perserves the sanity of the adults raising the child. My children were never allowed to do and say anything they wanted. In fact, I would consider it criminally neglectful behavior if any parents did.

Perhaps, what bothers you are the choices her parents made regarding what she was allowed to say and do. That's quite reasonable, but please be more specific. But this statement is just, well, incredibly naive about children and parenting. I take you are not a parent? Or did you just mispeak yourself? I had very different ideas about what behaviors were reasonable and permitted than my parents did, but nonetheless, I did and do control what children are allowed to say and do by rewarding and punishing appropriately. So this complaint is not only NOT a symptom of abuse, it is one hallmark of responsible parenting. Given that a majority of people would consider also a religion education another hallmark of responsible parenting does not elevate my opinion of your judgement regarding what is and isn't abusive to children.

It took her years to undo the damage and she is still in therapy for it. She is 46.
So, you may have to establish whether it was child abuse but that has been established for me. It fits the definition. I'm sorry your friend was abused, but you haven't done a good job of connecting the beliefs you objected to with the abuse your friend suffered.
You've established your friend was abused. You've established that she was taught the things you specified. What you haven't done is establish cause and effect. You've provided an instant of abuse in that situation. Slingblade provides another. This suggests a correlation. I and my three siblings provide examples that such a correlation, if it exists at all, isn't a strong one.

I do not question your right to not view your upbringing as abusive. I just object to your opinion that your view is the only one allowed by those who went through the same or worse. Your argument relies on the either or fallacy. It is groundless. Others can and do view it differently. I have no quarrel with whether they were abused in such a setting or the claim that it can be part of an abusive atmosphere. But when you are suggesting it is so pervausively bad for people that societal intervention is needed, you need to marshal better evidence to support that position than a few anecdotes. I don't need to prove that it isn't abusive ever. You need to show that teaching such beliefs is either always or almost always so harmful to children that it is justified to call it abuse and seek to prevent it by law.

[Beth]

It can be. It was to me. But we are individual examples.

You provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing isn't necessarily harmful.

I provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing can be very harmful.

The truth lies in there somewhere. There are probably many truths. As many as there are individuals and upbringings.

I'm glad to say that I agree with you entirely here. :)

[Ivor the Engineer]

...Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to justify the drastic measures you are advocating to remedy what many do not even percieve as a wrong to their children but a duty.

<snip>



It's good enough for religion...

[Beth]

It's good enough for religion...

So? That doesn't make it good enough for me.

[mijopaalmc]

It's good enough for religion...

I thought that, as self-identified critical thinkers, those who criticize religion as vigorously as it is criticized here held themselves to a higher standard.

[articulett]

My Mom thinks I'm great too:D

Yes... that damn human thing-- my kid is awesome and those who think like I do are the smartest people of all-- oh, and right-- did I mention how right they are?

[articulett]

It's good enough for religion...

I'm not even sure there's anecdotal evidence for faith based dogmas-- most the stuff is "beyond human understanding" and involves goodies (and/or baddies) in the next life, right?

[bokonon]

We shouldn't have to use special language to avoid hurting feelings on a skeptics forum... and it does get tiresome that every time any creationist abuse is mentioned the "you can't say religion IS child abuse" people derail the thread, ignore the OP and demonize those who bring religion's abuses to the table for discussion.
Okay, guilty, let me see if I can help get it back on track.

I do think the push to legitimize creation science is a valid concern right now. As I may have stated elsewhere on the board, it's what's bringing me out of the closet as an atheist, after decades of being content to let my private beliefs remain private.

I'll never forget one day, twenty years ago, when I got a ride from one of my co-workers to pick up my car at the shop. She was Vietnamese, and had formerly been one of the boat people. Maybe a church had sponsored her entry into the United States, I don't know. Her four-year-old son was in the car with us, looking at a children's book. I started looking at the book too, and saw that it told the story of Noah's Ark. What surprised me was one picture, with the water starting to rise, which depicted a concerned-looking Tyrannosaurus flailing about as the Ark floated out of reach.

I said, "You know, I don't think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." She shot me a severe look, and snapped, "Yes they did." I let the matter drop, not because I was afraid she'd put me out by the side of the road, but because I didn't believe in the story of Noah's Ark to begin with, and saw no point in having that conversation. Believing that myth didn't prevent her from writing computer programs that worked.

I do think it's important to push science, to emphasize the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, to teach critical thinking, and to make sure that religious dogma can only be taught as fact inside homes and religious institutions. I didn't stay in touch, so I don't know what her son is doing now, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he's productively employed in spite of his indoctrination.

Most people, even fundamentalists who believe in creationism, can still manage to think rationally outside the box of their religious beliefs. While it's true we probably won't see an atheist elected President any time soon (unless he or she is a stealth atheist, who waits until the second term to drop the pretense), I don't feel particularly persecuted in this society.

By all means, let's continue to discover and disseminate the truths that will debunk creationism. That's a worthwhile goal, and achievable. Trying to eliminate fundamentalism itself strikes me as foolish tilting at windmills.

P.S. The OP was concerned about a parody site, so ignoring those concerns is understandable. While the parody may touch on real matters of concern, we need to focus on the real matters rather than exaggeration for the sake of humor.

[Ivor the Engineer]

So? That doesn't make it good enough for me.

But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?

I thought that, as self-identified critical thinkers, those who criticize religion as vigorously as it is criticized here held themselves to a higher standard.

I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I'm not even sure there's anecdotal evidence for faith based dogmas-- most the stuff is "beyond human understanding" and involves goodies (and/or baddies) in the next life, right?

I was feeling generous;)

[articulett]

But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?



I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them.

Yes... they just don't see that they are advocating a freedom of speech for themselves to criticize whom they please and have parents tell their kids whatever they want and allow creationists to lie in whatever manner they choose-- but don't want to allow those who disagree to do the same.

Surely they wouldn't be demonizing people for criticizing recognized cults indoctrinating kids, or people making their children into racists or homophobes or Muslim extremists... but when it comes to their special chosen faith (Christianity) it must never be criticized or scrutinized because the special people who believe in such things ought to be deferred to and anyone who suggests that all faiths have the potential for harm--or even the notion that "faith is good" can be harmful must be made into "religion haters" responsible for all that is bad. Threads are derailed to talk about these "aggressive atheists".

"Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee"-- the motto of the righteous. "Let me tell you how to live your lives more morally like me" they seem to be saying. But I don't see them as more moral. I don't know what the answer is, but I think all answers... even discussing things on a skeptics forum where people might think about things they hadn't thought about before--is better than continuing to pretend it's all fine and good if it has the word "god" attached.

People have been frightened into not questioning god and extending that "not questioning" to everything associated with god while telling themselves they are humble and saved for doing so (and telling themselves they are extra good and special by making bad guys out of those who don't defer as they've been cowed into doing.)

[articulett]

.

I said, "You know, I don't think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." She shot me a severe look, and snapped, "Yes they did." I let the matter drop, not because I was afraid she'd put me out by the side of the road, but because I didn't believe in the story of Noah's Ark to begin with, and saw no point in having that conversation. Believing that myth didn't prevent her from writing computer programs that worked.

P.S. The OP was concerned about a parody site, so ignoring those concerns is understandable. While the parody may touch on real matters of concern, we need to focus on the real matters rather than exaggeration for the sake of humor.

I see your point... and I agree. In the real world I am often in such situations where I don't know what, if anything, I should say. And it is important to consider the goal. I hope the kid grew up and got a good dose of religious mockery on the internet so that he could grow beyond Noah's Ark like he did beyond Santa. The truth is so much better than the fiction, and we need more people to understand it and take it further and share it with others-- not more people who think they are moral because they believe the right unbelievable story with angry jesus-defending passion.

And I realized latter that the OP was a parody... but Jesus camp wasn't... and the notion that those who criticize religion are labeling it child abuse is a twisting upon twisting of a derail of another thread. And the original accusation was hurled at Dawkins as though he's trying to outlaw religion... and all of it was about making the person criticizing religion look bad so that people wouldn't examine what it was that the person was actually criticizing.

I have strong feelings about those who try to protect faith from scrutiny and to automatically vilify those who criticize "religion" (in general... which they extrapolate to mean that you think ALL religion is ALWAYS bad and HARMFUL in their hyperbolic derails.) I think anyone who speaks out even just on this forum is doing more for critical think and humanity in general than those who rush to shut them up and assert themselves as authorities in the "right way" to curtail the "faith is good/non-belief is bad" meme.

[qayak]

However, if you would like to elaborate on why the teachings you mentioned should be considered abusive even when the 'victim' does not, then I'll elaborate on why incest can be considered abusive even if the victim does not.

Okay, now you are being realistic. It is abusive for someone in authority to lie to their charges. It is more abusive to hold those lies up as truth while you systematically tell them that the truth is a lie.

Now, you and others have claimed that children will eventually learn the truth and be none the worse for wear. You have also claimed that the people spreading the lies aren't really lying because they believe it is the truth.

These two statements contradict each other. If the adults teaching the lies can't tell they are lies, how do you expect children to?

The new morality according to Mead is that you can "F" a kids mind anyway you want and still hold yourself up in church, temple or synagogue as a good person. Fortunately, some people on skeptic's lists recognize the immorality of it.

[qayak]

But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?

I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them.

Thank you! :i:

[Meadmaker]

The new morality according to Mead is that you can "F" a kids mind anyway you want and still hold yourself up in church, temple or synagogue as a good person. Fortunately, some people on skeptic's lists recognize the immorality of it.

Well, that's not exactly what I said, but it doesn't surprise me that you took it that way.

[qayak]

Well, that's not exactly what I said, but it doesn't surprise me that you took it that way.

The law protects their bodies. Their minds are fair game


For the life of me I have been unable to find another way to take this. It flat out says that the law has left their minds unprotected and because of this they are fair game for anything they would need protection from.

Let's go back to the first time you said this and examine something else: "In other words, the law protects their bodies. Their minds are fair game. While that can be unfortunate, the alternative is to define thought crimes, which would be worse, in my humble opinion"

This has nothing to do with thought crimes, which is the realm of religions. We are not preventing anyone from thinking exactly what they want to think. We are preventing people from pushing their lies onto others in the name of religious freedom.

The unfortunate thing is that you are happy that children are not protected from the lies religions teach. The people who believe as you do would be up in arms if I told their children the truth though. Amazing!

[six7s]

The people who believe as you do would be up in arms if I told their children the truth though. Amazing!

Hi qayak,

Whilst I genuinely admire your intentions, I have a hunch it'll take more than words to break the woo cycle

Google: Results for children learn listen observe (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=children+learn+listen+observe+&btnG=Search)

Kids don't listen (much), instead they learn by observing and emulating those they respect and trust

Although we don't respect their parents, they have no choice (unless you're advocating some mass rehousing project - which sounds eerily like a scene from some B-grade NWO-style horror) and why should they have to make such a choice? Simply cos 'we know better'?

So... who/what else do they respect and trust?
Mass media? Maybe
Schools? Maybe

Woo is ugly. Social engineering ain't pretty either

[Meadmaker]

For the life of me I have been unable to find another way to take this. It flat out says that the law has left their minds unprotected and because of this they are fair game for anything they would need protection from.

Yes, the law does not protect their minds. However, the law protects their bodies. When we say, "You have the right to raise your kids in any religion you wish." we are saying that you can't be prosecuted for your ideas, including those you tell your children. On the other hand, it says nothing about what you can do to them. Physically, the law can, and should, impose a lot of restrictions.

Some people think God demands that they beat their kids. Some think that God gives them the right to have sex with minors. To take drugs. To withhold medication. The law says none of those things and people can be prosecuted for any of them. On the other hand, the law says they cannot be prosecuted for the content of their speech toward children.

You said:
The new morality according to Mead is that you can "F" a kids mind anyway you want and still hold yourself up in church, temple or synagogue as a good person. Fortunately, some people on skeptic's lists recognize the immorality of it.

This would be true, if you held it to a strictly legal sense, but then it would be nothing new. The very old morality, from the beginning of America, is that you can't be prosecuted for anything at all that you say in a church, temple, or synagogue.

I like it that way. I don't want the government dictating what gets said in the home or in the synagogue. That would be an incredible amount of power, and I guarantee that if you grant the government that kind of power it would be abused, and sooner or later you would find that something you believed in would be declared a lie, and a crime, by the government wielding that power.


The unfortunate thing is that you are happy that children are not protected from the lies religions teach. The people who believe as you do would be up in arms if I told their children the truth though. Amazing!

One person who believes as I believe is me, and I am not up in arms at the thought that you might tell my child what you think is the truth. Indeed, I would take up arms against any government that tried to stop you.

[Beth]

Okay, now you are being realistic. It is abusive for someone in authority to lie to their charges. It is more abusive to hold those lies up as truth while you systematically tell them that the truth is a lie.

Okay. So you are saying the reason that parents teaching their children their religion is abusive even when the 'victims' don't perceive it as abuse is because it’s a lie. This is a pretty weak argument for advocating making parents teaching religion to their children illegal. Further, when you move away from the fundamentalist, literal interpretations of their holy book, it’s pretty hard to make the case that the parents are lying to their children because they aren't making claims that can be falsified.

Now, I said I would in return provide some reasons why incest can be considered abusive even if the victim doesn’t perceive it that way. So here are three excerpts from abstracts on the issue of the effects of childhood sexual abuse:

From the abstract for “The Relationships between Childhood Sexual Abuse, Social Anxiety, and Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Women” by Feerick, Margaret M.; Snow, Kyle L. with National Instit Child Health & Human Development, National Instit Health, Bethesda, MD published in Journal of Family Violence, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 409-419, Dec 2005:
Women with a history of sexual abuse reported more symptoms of anxiety, distress in social situations, & posttraumatic stress disorder than other women. Women who experienced attempted or actual intercourse reported more avoidance than women with no history of abuse & women with exposure only, & more PTSD symptoms than all other groups of women. Women who experienced fondling reported more PTSD symptoms than women with no history of abuse.

From the abstract for “Shame, Humiliation, and Childhood Sexual Abuse: Distinct Contributions and Emotional Coherence” by Negrao, Claudio II; Bonanno, George A.; Noll, Jennie G.; Putnam, Frank W.; Trickett, Penelope K. with Hispanic Counseling Center, New Britain General Hospital, CT published Child Maltreatment, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 350-363, Nov 2005 Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) may produce powerful & enduring emotion reactions, including intense shame, anger, & humiliation. Whereas shame & anger have received considerable interest from researchers, less attention has been paid to humiliation or associated coherence among these emotions as it relates to the psychological adjustment in CSA survivors. In the current investigation, the authors coded shame, anger, & humiliation from narrative transcripts of CSA survivors as they either voluntarily disclosed an abuse experience or described a distressing nonabuse experience & from nonabused individuals as they described a distressing experience. Verbal humiliation was found to be significantly associated with nonverbal displays of shame. Coherence between verbal humiliation & facial shame among CSA nondisclosers was associated with increased symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

From the abstract for “The Developmental Consequences of the Maltreatment of Girls” by Smith, Carolyn A. ; Ireland, Timothy O. with School Social Welfare, U Albany published in Criminologie, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 67-102, spring 200:

We find that experiencing substantiated maltreatment increases the risk of most outcomes at the bivariate level. Employing logistic regression, maltreatment increases the odds of several negative consequences after controlling for confounding sociodemographic variables including poverty, family structure, parental education, race/ethnicity, & adolescent delinquency. Results also suggest that sex abuse may be particularly problematic for these young women in emerging adulthood.

I’m only quoting 3, but there is a plethora of well documented adverse outcomes as a result of childhood sexual abuse and hundreds, if not thousands of peer-reviewed articles describing the abuse, the effects, and the best ways to treat people for it.

Incest is illegal in all 50 states and a parent who sexually abuses their child can be charged with a crime and lose custody of that child. Now, you’re suggesting we attempt a similar approach for dealing with parents who lie to their children without any of the rigorous scientific work needed to provide the supporting evidence that lying to children causes the same level of problems that sexual abuse does.

You haven't made a very convincing argument in my opinion. Where are the studies that show how often a religious upbringing results in adverse outcomes? What adverse outcomes can be expected? How severe are they? You have provided no evidence of damage from the teaching of religious beliefs beyond a single anecdote (and that only implies a correlation at best) and the argument that when teaching religion to children, they are being taught lies as if that automatically constituted abuse.


Now, you and others have claimed that children will eventually learn the truth and be none the worse for wear. No. I have claimed that the harm they may suffer from being taught religious beliefs is not sufficient to be called abusive and is not justification for governmental attempts to prevent it. I consider the solution to be significantly worse than the problem in this case.

You have also claimed that the people spreading the lies aren't really lying because they believe it is the truth. Yes. In my opinion a lie is a deliberate deception by the speaker.
These two statements contradict each other. If the adults teaching the lies can't tell they are lies, how do you expect children to? Yes, those statements do but you were incorrect about my position regarding the first statement. There is no contradiction in what I was actually saying.

[Beth]

But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?

Not what I said. I don't consider 'not okay' = 'abusive'. While anything abusive is certainly not okay, there's an awful lot of terrority that falls under the 'not okay' banner that doesn't make it to 'abusive'. Unless you want to claim that everything a parent does that is not okay is automaticallyl abusive, your statement doesn't follow from mine at all.

I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them. Would you care to explain what anecdotal evidence I'm accepting from religion? I'm an agnostic remember.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not what I said. I don't consider 'not okay' = 'abusive'. While anything abusive is certainly not okay, there's an awful lot of terrority that falls under the 'not okay' banner that doesn't make it to 'abusive'. Unless you want to claim that everything a parent does that is not okay is automaticallyl abusive, your statement doesn't follow from mine at all.

I claim that everything a parent does that is 'not okay' is automatically abusive. However, there are levels of abuse, usually graded on the functional impact they have on the child, either psychologically or physically.

Would you care to explain what anecdotal evidence I'm accepting from religion? I'm an agnostic remember.

Well the comment would not apply to you then.

[ponderingturtle]

Which is why you read about it all the time. A kid dies, and the parents say, "Sure, medicine could have saved her, but it was God's will that she die. What good would it be to let them live if it makes God angry?" You hear it again and again and again. Day after day. For example, there was that case.....uh....well, I don't remember exactly, but it happens all the time.

So a strawman that it would have to be well reported is your proof? You are slipping. Does it happen very often, no, but are there many cases where it did happen and did not get the press you seem to think it would? Yep.

It referenced over a hundred cases in the link I provided.

[Slimething]

Yes, the law does not protect their minds. However, the law protects their bodies. ...
Indeed, I would take up arms against any government that tried to stop you.

Meadmaker, you make excellent points about government intervention against what some of us see as woo indoctriation of captive young. However, I have not seen anyone propose legal/governmental action against this practice. The best approach is always to educate and to move society as a whole to a new level of function. I can't speak for everyone but I see this as a social battle, not a legislative one.

[Meadmaker]

However, I have not seen anyone propose legal/governmental action against this practice.

I asked qayak what sort of government initiative he would support, and he said he would support any initiative.

Any politician today who actually proposed such an initiative would be drummed out of office at the first opportunity. I just want to keep it that way.

[Meadmaker]

So a strawman that it would have to be well reported is your proof? You are slipping. Does it happen very often, no, but are there many cases where it did happen and did not get the press you seem to think it would? Yep.

It referenced over a hundred cases in the link I provided.

I think the strawman here is that some wacky weirdos who do some strange thing have anything to do with mainstream religion. I understand that some strange guy did something stupid and said God told him to do it, but I don't see why that makes whatever it is that they do at the United Church of Christ "child abuse".

[Meadmaker]

Okay. So you are saying the reason that parents teaching their children their religion is abusive even when the 'victims' don't perceive it as abuse is because it’s a lie. This is a pretty weak argument for advocating making parents teaching religion to their children illegal. Further, when you move away from the fundamentalist, literal interpretations of their holy book, it’s pretty hard to make the case that the parents are lying to their children because they aren't making claims that can be falsified.

To amplify on this point, I think it's important to understand that what actually gets taught in churches and synagogues often bears little resemblance to what is discussed in this forum. This is especially true for the more liberal branches of various sects, such as Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ or Unity Church, etc.

If you actually were to go to a synagogue and hear a real sermon, or to a Unity church and hear a real sermon, the vast majority of what they say would be a combination of pop psychology and social commentary, and almost everyone would agree with almost all of it. Oh, yeah, they might throw in some stuff about God, too. Whatever.

[fagin]

Sometimes you just have to be pragmatic. I recently moved to the UK from New Zealand with a son about to enter high school. As a result of the move (not my choice - personal reasons) I am relatively poor, trying to support myself as well as my ex (evil) and son. So can't afford private school.
I have bent over backwards to get my son into one of the top 5 government schools in England (renting a house outside the school gates helped.)
The school is magnificent compared to the average: (average approx in brackets)

Total size - 500 (1700)
Class size - 18 (30+)
GCSE a-c pass - 100% (75% or less)

In addition the facilities are excellent, and the basics are stressed - multiplication tables etc (a bit sad to do this in high school but better than not at all), sport is competitive, and kids have to behave themselves - that is clearly made the parents resposibility. Quite old fashioned but it seems to work, the kids there seem happy and the school gets results.
And very very difficult to get into.

The downside - religion plays a part - chapel each morning etc.

I hate the word atheist - why should I define myself by what I don't believe? (Would you call yourself a non paedophile? - why?)
When asked I just tell people that whilst I may enjoy reading fairy stories I don't believe in them.

Apologies for all the words but to get to my point.
Morally these are decent people, my son will get a good education but his head will also be filled with rubbish, but that at least we can discuss and hopefully I can be a really bad influence and make sure he doesn't get brainwashed.

I don't feel like I've sold out or anything by sending him to this school, even if I disagree with some of the teachings. Just a pity it has come to this.

[Slimething]

I asked qayak what sort of government initiative he would support, and he said he would support any initiative.

Any politician today who actually proposed such an initiative would be drummed out of office at the first opportunity. I just want to keep it that way.

That second paragraph is not true, Meadmaker, much as I would like to see it too. There are plenty of politicians who want to indoctrinate children in the public school system and they're still in office. As a matter of fact, proposing something like this is pretty much a rite of passage for politicians from certain sectors of the USA. There is a fair sector of the population who wants to "bring god back into the government".

So, I would agree with qayak's position as a firm way of saying "suck it, jesus" to those people.

[ponderingturtle]

I think the strawman here is that some wacky weirdos who do some strange thing have anything to do with mainstream religion. I understand that some strange guy did something stupid and said God told him to do it, but I don't see why that makes whatever it is that they do at the United Church of Christ "child abuse".

So you do not need to make correct statements to prove that religion is not child abuse?

You are not supporting your case with anything other than the very poor argument "I do not hear about X so it must not be happening", isn't that an argument from ignorance?

Now as to how much damage being done by religions decrying medicine, well in this country it would seem to be minimal, as I have found claims of less than 200 children dieing over a relatively long period of time, with only a few deaths per year.

So it is not a massive problem, but just because it is not well reported doesn't mean it does not happen.

[slingblade]

What if it's all tangled up together? I know that for the sake of discussion we often take on one issue at a time, but what if you were being brainwashed by the church at the same time you were being sexually abused? Yeah, yeah, the altar-boy/priest thing qualifies, but what about other types?

Suppose you were in a church, or a churchy social system that, while preparing you for adolescence, drummed into your head that sex outside marriage was wrong, evil, dirty, and that you'd go to hell for even thinking about it.

And during the years they're telling you this, several men have been fondling you, performing oral sex on you, grooming you for penetration, and expecting you to reciprocate? So, you don't tell anybody, because you're convinced you're wrong, evil, and dirty and going to hell?

What kind of messed-up adult do you get to become?





(I'm on display Saturday and Sunday evenings, with a matinee on Wednesdays, if anyone wants to see.)

[qayak]

Okay. So you are saying the reason that parents teaching their children their religion is abusive even when the 'victims' don't perceive it as abuse is because it’s a lie. This is a pretty weak argument for advocating making parents teaching religion to their children illegal. Further, when you move away from the fundamentalist, literal interpretations of their holy book, it’s pretty hard to make the case that the parents are lying to their children because they aren't making claims that can be falsified.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing39.html

Scheflin cites studies in the '50s at Yale that showed people would ignore clear-cut fact to conform to a group lie and '70s studies proving how easy it is to manipulate people with authoritative commands. "We know that people can be influenced, we know they can be unduly influenced, we know they can be unduly indoctrinated," says Scheflin. "What's the problem?"

Rutgers University sociologist Benjamin Zablocki complains that the cult/religious group litigations stopped further scientific inquiry into brainwashing at a time when it might have shed light on the mental state of terrorists. Court cases require black-and-white thinking, either/or analysis, he says, while "scientists are supposed to try to get to the truth by seeing all the nuances and complexities of what actually goes on."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html

Conclusions

The preceding literature review suggests that most of the nationally known LGATs and a burgeoning, but as yet undetermined number, of take-offs on them are using powerful psychological techniques capable of stripping individuals of their psychological defenses, inducing behavioral regression, and promoting regressive modes of reasoning.

[Beth]

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing39.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html

Conclusions

These links are about brainwashing techniques used by, among others, religious cults. They even define religious cults so as not to confuse them with normal accepted religions. Thus, these links are not evidence of harm to children caused by a religious upbringing. Would you like to try again?

[Slimething]

These links are about brainwashing techniques used by, among others, religious cults. They even define religious cults so as not to confuse them with normal accepted religions. Thus, these links are not evidence of harm to children caused by a religious upbringing.

No. Read the articles carefully. They try to define cults in such a way as to exclude older religions but even they admit that their efforts are not 100% efficient. Would you care to try again?

[ponderingturtle]

No. Read the articles carefully. They try to define cults in such a way as to exclude older religions but even they admit that their efforts are not 100% efficient. Would you care to try again?

Also the best definition of cult vs religion that I have heard has nothing to do with being mainstream. A cult in centered on an individual leader, and a religion is an institution.

So the FLDS church might well not rate as a cult.

In general use cult is just a religion that the person does not like, it is the religious version of pervert.

[Beth]

Also the best definition of cult vs religion that I have heard has nothing to do with being mainstream. A cult in centered on an individual leader, and a religion is an institution. Yes, they discuss different definitions and this is the one they specify the one they are using for this report - the totalist type cult:

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.


Further, they indicate that they are NOT referring to typical practices in regard to a parent raising their child to follow the same faith they do:
How much of the harm associated with cults is causally related to group practices? Why, for instance, should one consider "child abuse and cults" a meaningful topic of study, but not "child abuse and Methodists" or "child abuse and sociologists"? Many would answer that cults, unlike Methodists or sociologists, tend to be very controlling and characteristically use disturbingly subtle manipulations: deliberate attempts to manipulate someone else's behavior seem exploitative when they are covert.

So the links gayak provided do not give any evidence to support the contention that indoctrination into the parent's religion is a form of child abuse. At least, not without demonstrating that mainstream religions meet the definition given above for a totalist type cult. I will agree that some fundamentalist churches would meet this definition of a cult, but such churches are not representative of mainstream religion.

[ponderingturtle]

So the links gayak provided do not give any evidence to support the contention that indoctrination into the parent's religion is a form of child abuse. At least, not without demonstrating that mainstream religions meet the definition given above for a totalist type cult. I will agree that some fundamentalist churches would meet this definition of a cult, but such churches are not representative of mainstream religion.

What is mainstream? I remember seeing how Huntster took to heart a great deal of the crap spewed out by the catholic church, and that would seem to be mainstream.

[Beth]

What is mainstream? I remember seeing how Huntster took to heart a great deal of the crap spewed out by the catholic church, and that would seem to be mainstream.

I think churches like Fred Phelp's and David Koresh's meet the definition of cult. The Catholic church does not.

[ponderingturtle]

I think churches like Fred Phelp's and David Koresh's meet the definition of cult. The Catholic church does not.

Then are you claiming that the catholic church does not harm many people(leaving asside church sex abuse scandals for now).

If it is main stream it should be harmless right?

[Beth]

Then are you claiming that the catholic church does not harm many people(leaving asside church sex abuse scandals for now).

If it is main stream it should be harmless right?

No, my claim is that whatever harm may be done by raising a child in the catholic church, it is not suffucient to justify calling it abusive. If may or may not qualify as harmful depending on the definition of 'harm' used, but in general, whatever harm may be done it is not so detrimental that it is reasonable to seek to prevent parents from doing so.

[Slimething]

No, my claim is that the harm done ... is not suffuciently harmful .. If may or may not be harmful depending on the definition of 'harm' used, but it is not so harmful ...

Alrighty then! :wink8:

[kellyb]

I will agree that some fundamentalist churches would meet this definition of a cult, but such churches are not representative of mainstream religion.

I hate making a claim that I can't prove, but it is my impression that most of mainstream protestant Christianity (and by that, I mean the regular church attenders) meets most of that definition.
Much more so within youth groups than in the adult services and activities, though.

[Beth]

I hate making a claim that I can't prove, but it is my impression that most of mainstream protestant Christianity (and by that, I mean the regular church attenders) meets most of that definition.
Much more so within youth groups than in the adult services and activities, though.

I don't agree. Why do you feel that way?

[kellyb]

I don't agree. Why do you feel that way?

Let's go through the traits:

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing

That should be pretty obvious. "On fire for Christ" etc.

and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders,

And within the church, people who ask "bad questions" get "prayed for" eventually for having a 'rebellious spirit' or whatever (at least for kids in youth groups that's pretty common).

to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.

That's a little too vague to comment on.

Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family,

Christian kids aren't supposed to hang with unsaved kids, they're supposed to see unsaved parents and family as blinded by Satan...

debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience,

The emotional, hypnotic effect of worship services...


powerful group pressures,

You accept the theology or are ostracised...more "we'll pray for you" stuff...

information management,

No secular books, music, TV, "liberal news sources", etc.

suspension of individuality or critical judgment,
That one should be obvious, too...

promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.

If you leave the church, it's because you're being led by Satan, etc. Hellbound.

This is not the experience only in obscure little fundamentalist Westboro places...this is what goes on in the mega-churches! I admit I live in the bible belt, so I saw the worst of the worst for a national average, I guess...but this is what went on at all three of the mega-churches here in my little corner of the South. Most of the Evangelical/Baptist churches use the same kinds of youth programs. They tend to be little clones of each other. They're all brainwashy in the same ways.

[qayak]

These links are about brainwashing techniques used by, among others, religious cults. They even define religious cults so as not to confuse them with normal accepted religions. Thus, these links are not evidence of harm to children caused by a religious upbringing. Would you like to try again?

You can forget about the definition of cult. it is the brainwashing techniques I am pointing to. As is reported in other papers linked to these, almost any mainstream religion fits the definition of a cult. Many experts however, look at the structure and dynamics of the group although many others feels this still means mainstream religions meet the definition.

But, I don't care. it is the brainwashing I am interested in.

My opponents in the debate have said that the adults/parents teaching the kids are not lying because they really believe what they are teraching and yet they also say that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.

This is completely contradictory to me and it hasn't been addressed by those opponsnts as of yet. Not that I am surprised.

The second part of my complaint has to do with how easy it is to suggest things to children. Studies have been done where a group of kids who have never been to Disneyland are asked if they have ever been there. They all say no. They are told, "Well, that's too bad because if you had been to Disneyland you would have seen . . . " they are then told all about what they would have seen and done there. Shortly after this they are once again asked if they have ever been to Disneyland, and a large percentage say they have and go on to tell all about it.

It is very easy to get children to believe false things and almost impossible for them to discard those falsehoods easily. Something as simple as being told about Disneyland once will have a great effect, what will being told the lies of religions, repeatedly, for years do?

The point being, why hamper a child's development by creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that they will spend a lot of time, sometimes a lifetime, trying to overcome?

[ponderingturtle]

Let's go through the traits:



That should be pretty obvious. "On fire for Christ" etc.



And within the church, people who ask "bad questions" get "prayed for" eventually for having a 'rebellious spirit' or whatever (at least for kids in youth groups that's pretty common).



That's a little too vague to comment on.



Christian kids aren't supposed to hang with unsaved kids, they're supposed to see unsaved parents and family as blinded by Satan...



The emotional, hypnotic effect of worship services...




You accept the theology or are ostracised...more "we'll pray for you" stuff...



No secular books, music, TV, "liberal news sources", etc.


That one should be obvious, too...



If you leave the church, it's because you're being led by Satan, etc. Hellbound.

This is not the experience only in obscure little fundamentalist Westboro places...this is what goes on in the mega-churches! I admit I live in the bible belt, so I saw the worst of the worst for a national average, I guess...but this is what went on at all three of the mega-churches here in my little corner of the South. Most of the Evangelical/Baptist churches use the same kinds of youth programs. They tend to be little clones of each other. They're all brainwashy in the same ways.

This is certainly present, look at the movies Hell House for example(they seem to have jewish witches as they use a star of david instead of a pentagram for their witches)

But how mainstream this is, well it is hard to say. Here in NY you don't really see this, but in the nation on average it is hard to say.

[Meadmaker]

My opponents in the debate have said that the adults/parents teaching the kids are not lying because they really believe what they are teraching and yet they also say that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.

This is completely contradictory to me and it hasn't been addressed by those opponsnts as of yet. Not that I am surprised.


To the extent that this has been said by anyone, I suppose it most resembles something said by me, so I might as well address it.

The first part, whether or not the adults are lying, is just a definition.

So, what about the second part? Are kids "perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction"? Well, adults aren't, so why should kids be? Of course kids are not perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction. Of course kids will be influenced by family, by teachers, and by friends. A child is much more likely to adopt religion if he is taught it by his parents than if not. Although a few people who grew up atheists decide to become Christians as adults, it's much rarer. In fact, the ones I've known personally all involved some sort of love affair. Love makes people do weird things.*

My point was not that kids aren't influenced by adults, or that they weren't likely to believe what they are told from trusted sources. My point was that, regardless of that, it is still the kid's choice. When that child turns into an adult, that child has a choice about whether or not to remain Christian, or whatever.

How will he make that choice? I think he will make that choice based on his experience. Does his religion seem true to him? Does it seem to be having a positive influence on him? If so, he'll remain a Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu. If not, and he lives in a place where it is not a crime, he'll switch religions or become atheist.

*ETA: I didn't realize it when I wrote it, but this includes me. You never would have caught me in a synagogue prior to marriage.

The point being, why hamper a child's development by creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that they will spend a lot of time, sometimes a lifetime, trying to overcome?

An awful lot of them don't spend a lifetime trying to overcome it, and they seem none the worse for wear.

There has been a lot of discussion here about "cults" vs. "mainstream". I agree that there is no hard and fast line you can draw that separates them, but a distinction that is frequently useful is a fairly simple one. How does it affect their life outside the church/cult? I work with Methodists. I've dated Christians. I married a Jew. They all seem perfectly capable of functioning well in the real world. Branch Davidians shot at federal agents, let some strange guy screw their daughters, and shot their children in the back of the head when the feds came in.

To my way of thinking, that makes the Branch Davidians a bit stranger than the Methodists, regardless of any similarities in doctrine.

[Beth]

Let's go through the traits: Okay
That should be pretty obvious. "On fire for Christ" etc. I'll agree with this one.
And within the church, people who ask "bad questions" get "prayed for" eventually for having a 'rebellious spirit' or whatever (at least for kids in youth groups that's pretty common).
I don't see this as "employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion" . It seems pretty direct to me and open to me rather than deceptive and indirect.
That's a little too vague to comment on. That's a shame. I see it as the crucial charactoristic, particularly for the discussion here. If it's not harmful, it's certainly not abusive.

Christian kids aren't supposed to hang with unsaved kids, they're supposed to see unsaved parents and family as blinded by Satan... I don't think most mainstream churches are so restrictive that they forbid their youth from associating with jews, muslims, or methodists. The more restrictive and controlling churches may recommend it, I don't know, but they don't actually isolate their kids from those who are unsaved. Cults do.

The emotional, hypnotic effect of worship services... ???? I've been to worship services at a variety of churches over my life. Emotional, occasionally. Hypnotic, never. I don't think this is charactoristic of mainstream churches. Going back, I see the definition says: "debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" I don't think typical worship services can be called 'debilitating' though some do harp a lot on the 'subservience to god' bit.

You accept the theology or are ostracised...more "we'll pray for you" stuff... Dogmatic churches are this way, but not all churches are dogmatic. I know of a number of churchs that are self described as 'radically inclusive'. They welcome gay couples, etc. They don't ostracise those who disagree, but welcome them and the opportunity to win them over.

No secular books, music, TV, "liberal news sources", etc. This is pretty much limited to some fundamentalist churches, which I have already agreed could be considered cults. This isn't a charactoristic of mainstream churches.

That one should be obvious, too... No. Same as above. This one only applies to certain fundamentalist churches. A great many churches want their members, including their children, to question what they believe in and why. They aren't afraid of it and they encourage it. That even includes some conservative denominations in addition to the liberal ones.

If you leave the church, it's because you're being led by Satan, etc. Hellbound. This depends on the church. Not a universal by any means, though I think it's a relative common trait.

This is not the experience only in obscure little fundamentalist Westboro places...this is what goes on in the mega-churches! I admit I live in the bible belt, so I saw the worst of the worst for a national average, I guess...but this is what went on at all three of the mega-churches here in my little corner of the South. Most of the Evangelical/Baptist churches use the same kinds of youth programs. They tend to be little clones of each other. They're all brainwashy in the same ways.

I just can't agree that this qualifies as brainwashing. Yes, there are some charactoristics in common with the definition, but that's also true of such things as goth culture, fan clubs for rock stars, etc. Churches, with some exceptions, don't fit the definition of cult well enough to convince me that such an experience is harmful to children.

[Beth]

But, I don't care. it is the brainwashing I am interested in.I don't see how the description of brainwashing techniques apply to the parent raising a child in their religion. Perhaps you could list the techniques you think are both commonly used by most mainstream religions and also qualify as 'brainwashing'.

My opponents in the debate have said that the adults/parents teaching the kids are not lying because they really believe what they are teraching and yet they also say that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.
This is completely contradictory to me and it hasn't been addressed by those opponsnts as of yet. Not that I am surprised. That is NOT what I have said and I specifically addressed which part I don't agree with it in my last response to you. In fact, I don't think anybody on this thread has indicated that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction. The point being, why hamper a child's development by creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that they will spend a lot of time, sometimes a lifetime, trying to overcome? This may be a reasonable argument to try and persuade parents from raising their child in a religion, although I think it's a stretch to claim that they are creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that the child will need to spend a lifetime overcoming. They aren't creating false memories and many people don't feel it necessary to 'overcome' the religious beliefs instilled as children. However, my main point is that it isn't sufficient to call a religious upbringing abusive.

[ponderingturtle]

If may or may not qualify as harmful depending on the definition of 'harm' used, but in general, whatever harm may be done it is not so detrimental that it is reasonable to seek to prevent parents from doing so.

Could you please give me some guidelines for how much harm needs to be done to be harmful.

[kellyb]

I don't see this as "employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion" . It seems pretty direct to me and open to me rather than deceptive and indirect.

Direct would be an open, direct statement : Questioning our agreed upon theology is forbidden. It will result in shunning. But they don't say that...it's just how it turns out when one attempts to understand from a perspective of disagreement.

That's a shame. I see it as the crucial charactoristic, particularly for the discussion here. If it's not harmful, it's certainly not abusive.

Well, I can think of at least a few examples that are harmful. Does living with a daily sense of guilt and shame over masturbation count? What about the shame that gay kids feel?

I don't think most mainstream churches are so restrictive that they forbid their youth from associating with jews, muslims, or methodists. The more restrictive and controlling churches may recommend it, I don't know, but they don't actually isolate their kids from those who are unsaved. Cults do

Not strictly forbidden but it's strongly encouraged that they "not be unequally yoked with unbelievers". It's a pretty fundamental teaching at many, many churches. Christian kids are supposed to lead the unsaved to Christ, not be friends with them in the traditional sense of the word. That's in the mainstream, too. It's not the rare exception.
And it's not just any Christian friends that will do. They shouldn't be "backslidden Christians" or "lukewarm Christians" or whatever other phrase they use for "not quite fanatical enough".

???? I've been to worship services at a variety of churches over my life. Emotional, occasionally. Hypnotic, never. I don't think this is charactoristic of mainstream churches. Going back, I see the definition says: "debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" I don't think typical worship services can be called 'debilitating' though some do harp a lot on the 'subservience to god' bit.

I dunno...the freeflow chanting of many Sunday and Wednesday night worship services can be pretty darn hypnotic.

Dogmatic churches are this way, but not all churches are dogmatic. I know of a number of churchs that are self described as 'radically inclusive'. They welcome gay couples, etc. They don't ostracise those who disagree, but welcome them and the opportunity to win them over.

Would you say the mega churches are more dogmatic or inclusive?
In my experience, here in the south, the megachurches are all extremely dogmatic, and the inclusive churches are both rare and smaller.

This is pretty much limited to some fundamentalist churches, which I have already agreed could be considered cults. This isn't a charactoristic of mainstream churches.

That is what kids in the youthgroups of the megachurches are taught. It's in Jr. High where those teachings start popping up. It's not some rare exception. I'm not sure how to prove this, though.


No. Same as above. This one only applies to certain fundamentalist churches. A great many churches want their members, including their children, to question what they believe in and why. They aren't afraid of it and they encourage it. That even includes some conservative denominations in addition to the liberal ones.

I'm talking about the giant protestant Evangelical churches. The ones with very in depth, all consuming youth programs and discipleship programs. These are simply not rare exceptions. This is very much a big chunk of "mainstream Christianity'.

I just can't agree that this qualifies as brainwashing. Yes, there are some charactoristics in common with the definition, but that's also true of such things as goth culture, fan clubs for rock stars, etc. Churches, with some exceptions, don't fit the definition of cult well enough to convince me that such an experience is harmful to children.

It's nothing like goth culture or fan clubs. Nothing.
In a great many of the churches in America with 6,000+ membership, basically all the elements of brainwashy cults are present. It's just accepted as "normal" because it's popular.
That said, I'm still not part of the "religion is child abuse" camp. I mean, I guess it flirts with the line at times, but I find the idea of legally forbidding it even more frightening.

[Beth]

Could you please give me some guidelines for how much harm needs to be done to be harmful.

My rule of the thumb is that the harm caused by the parent should be greater than the harm done by society if we decide to interfer and stop it. If the harm from the interference is greater, then the rest of us need to back off and let the parents make their own choices about what risks and harms they are willing to expose their child to.

This is a flexible definition that means that what is considered harmful enough to justify society intervention will change with the type of intervention being proposed. In general, I think that religious training or indoctrination is not very high on the 'harmful' scale (i.e. 'lying' to children and perhaps preventing them from reaching their full potential) while intervention to stop it would be very damaging.

[ponderingturtle]

My rule of the thumb is that the harm caused by the parent should be greater than the harm done by society if we decide to interfer and stop it. If the harm from the interference is greater, then the rest of us need to back off and let the parents make their own choices about what risks and harms they are willing to expose their child to.

ANd this is a good reason not to ban teaching children religion, but it does not mean that it is not commonly intentionaly harmful to them, and that seems like a reasonable definition of abuse.

[Beth]

ANd this is a good reason not to ban teaching children religion, but it does not mean that it is not commonly intentionaly harmful to them, and that seems like a reasonable definition of abuse.

No, my definition does not imply that it is not intentionally harmful (I developed it when discussing the issue of banning spanking) nor do I think that intent to cause harm is a reasonable definition of abuse. Intention of harm covers things like vaccinations. It causes the child pain and a small harm (a pinprick) but it is considered an insignificant harm for a major gain and not abusive. Further, I don't think that parents teaching their children their religious beliefs is done with the intent of causing them harm but because they perceive it as beneficial to their child.

[ponderingturtle]

No, my definition does not imply that it is not intentionally harmful (I developed it when discussing the issue of banning spanking) nor do I think that intent to cause harm is a reasonable definition of abuse. Intention of harm covers things like vaccinations. It causes the child pain and a small harm (a pinprick) but it is considered an insignificant harm for a major gain and not abusive. Further, I don't think that parents teaching their children their religious beliefs is done with the intent of causing them harm but because they perceive it as beneficial to their child.

Sowhat are the major long term benefits of catholicism?

And if you only care about their perceptions, then the FLDS church is not abusive either.

[Beth]

Sowhat are the major long term benefits of catholicism? As I'm not a catholic, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer what benefits would be specific to catholicism.
And if you only care about their perceptions, then the FLDS church is not abusive either. I'm afraid I'm not sure what the FLDS church is. Is it a branch of the Latter Day Saints or Mormons? What is it that the FLDS church does that you consider abusive to children?

[ponderingturtle]

As I'm not a catholic, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer what benefits would be specific to catholicism. I'm afraid I'm not sure what the FLDS church is. Is it a branch of the Latter Day Saints or Mormons? What is it that the FLDS church does that you consider abusive to children?

The FLDS church forces young women to marry older men as polygamous marriages. It teaches that in heaven men get graded by the number of wives that they had and that 4 is really needed.

So they marry girls of say 14 to older men. There is a case in court about one marrying her 19 year old cousin.

It is a branch of the Mormons who never gave up polygamy.

[Slimething]

As I'm not a catholic, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer what benefits would be specific to catholicism.

:confused: You were very quick and resolute in declaring that the teaching of catholicism did not amount to "harm" just a few posts ago.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what the FLDS church is. Is it a branch of the Latter Day Saints or Mormons? What is it that the FLDS church does that you consider abusive to children?

So, when you state that religious indoctrination of children is not harmful or abusive, you really have no basis to judge. Did I get that right? I find it astounding that a person can make a statement that a specific practice is acceptable when they know nothing about that specific practice. :eye-poppi

[Beth]

The FLDS church forces young women to marry older men as polygamous marriages. It teaches that in heaven men get graded by the number of wives that they had and that 4 is really needed.

So they marry girls of say 14 to older men. There is a case in court about one marrying her 19 year old cousin.

It is a branch of the Mormons who never gave up polygamy.

In my state, it's illegal for girls 14 and under to marry even with parental consent. That would qualify as statuatory rape here. At any rate, I think we can agree that it isn't a mainstream religion in the U.S.

[Meadmaker]

In my state, it's illegal for girls 14 and under to marry even with parental consent. That would qualify as statuatory rape here. At any rate, I think we can agree that it isn't a mainstream religion in the U.S.

It qualified for statutory rape there, too:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070925/ts_nm/usa_polygamy_trial_dc_5;_ylt=Ag509P8ZjEscRys4vs3Qq lME1vAI

(The link is to an article in which the FLDS church leader was convicted for arranging the marriages.)

[qayak]

I don't see how the description of brainwashing techniques apply to the parent raising a child in their religion. Perhaps you could list the techniques you think are both commonly used by most mainstream religions and also qualify as 'brainwashing'.

I am sick of debating hypocrites. When you make that list of important things religions teach that are true, then I will make a list of brainwashing techniques religions use. And don't ask for any other lists until you provide something for your side of the debate.

That is NOT what I have said and I specifically addressed which part I don't agree with it in my last response to you. In fact, I don't think anybody on this thread has indicated that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.

Once again, go back and read and you will see they really did say it.

This may be a reasonable argument to try and persuade parents from raising their child in a religion, although I think it's a stretch to claim that they are creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that the child will need to spend a lifetime overcoming.

It is so staggering that the adults in the church, and we must assume somne of them are of average, or above, intelligence, have not been able to shake it.

We know they do shake it though because we never see any really old people in church. Certainly none over the age of 60! :hit:

They aren't creating false memories and many people don't feel it necessary to 'overcome' the religious beliefs instilled as children. However, my main point is that it isn't sufficient to call a religious upbringing abusive.

Of course they are. Just as surely as the people who convinced the children that they had been to Disneyland created false memories, religions do the same thing. That's what children do when they are told things by people they trust.

[Meadmaker]

I am sick of debating hypocrites. When you make that list of important things religions teach that are true, then I will make a list of brainwashing techniques religions use. And don't ask for any other lists until you provide something for your side of the debate.

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother; to perform acts of love and kindness; to attend to your studies daily; to welcome the stranger; to visit the sick; to rejoice with bride and groom; to console the bereaved; to pray with sincerity; to make peace where there is strife.

I'm not so impressed with number eight there, but 8 out of 9 isn't bad.

For a more familiar list, I think commandments 5-10 out of the familiar list are pretty good ideas, too.


Once again, go back and read and you will see they really did say it.


If by "they" you mean me, "they" most certainly did not. It seems you have misunderstood.

[Slimething]

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother; to perform acts of love and kindness; to attend to your studies daily; to welcome the stranger; to visit the sick; to rejoice with bride and groom; to console the bereaved; to pray with sincerity; to make peace where there is strife.

I'm not so impressed with number eight there, but 8 out of 9 isn't bad.

For a more familiar list, I think commandments 5-10 out of the familiar list are pretty good ideas, too.

Looks pretty much like what I've taught my kids, without no. 8. I've witheld the fact that they'll burn for eternity if they fail to live up to the lessons at or near the time they bite the dust, though. Their reward? Being a good person.

So, why do kids have to be threatened? Sound almost...primitive. ;)

[Meadmaker]

Looks pretty much like what I've taught my kids, without no. 8.

Well, then, be sure to make sure qayak understands that in your opinion there are at least eight true things that at least one religion teaches.

[Slimething]

Well, then, be sure to make sure qayak understands that in your opinion there are at least eight true things that at least one religion teaches.

Something tells me those aren't the ones he's thinking of. The more questionable teachings of religion have more to do with tribalism, manifest destiny and exclusion than with platitudes. Moreover, it's not established that those verities wouldn't be taught despite the religion.

[qayak]

If by "they" you mean me, "they" most certainly did not. It seems you have misunderstood.

There's another way of looking at this, and it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. I believe that they are indeed capable of thinking. Therefore, I believe that I can tell them to pray, but I cannot force them to believe the prayers.
If ineed they are sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK, then there really isn't any danger in sending them to Jesus Camp, much less to my son's parochial school. My kid seems to be coming along quite well in the thinking department, as are the graduates of the school to which I spoke before sending him there.

They most certainly did.

[qayak]

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother; to perform acts of love and kindness; to attend to your studies daily; to welcome the stranger; to visit the sick; to rejoice with bride and groom; to console the bereaved; to pray with sincerity; to make peace where there is strife.

I'm not so impressed with number eight there, but 8 out of 9 isn't bad.

For a more familiar list, I think commandments 5-10 out of the familiar list are pretty good ideas, too.

Jesus H. Christ I'm an ***** jew! Or maybe you're an atheist along with all the other jews, christians, muslims, and Bob Marley worshippers.

Nice evasion but I said, "important things." Things that seperate your religion from the others, or at least things that define what you must believe to belong to your religion, and that at the same time are true.

For instance: one would have to believe in your god to be in your religion. Now the only question is: Is your god true?

[Meadmaker]

There's another way of looking at this, and it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. I believe that they are indeed capable of thinking. Therefore, I believe that I can tell them to pray, but I cannot force them to believe the prayers.

If ineed they are sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK, then there really isn't any danger in sending them to Jesus Camp, much less to my son's parochial school. My kid seems to be coming along quite well in the thinking department, as are the graduates of the school to which I spoke before sending him there.


There was a certain degree of irony intended in the above post. Qayak had
rather haughtily claimed the high ground by suggesting that his preferred non-religious form of education respected the child's ability to THINK, whereas a religious upbringing did not. In reality, neither is more respectful than the other. Also, in reality, the claim that children are "sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK" is a somewhat overblown claim. They are, by definition, not mature, and their ability to think is a developing process, not developed as highly as an adult's abilty to think.

Of course, it should be obvious that children are impressionable, and likely to believe what trusted adults tell them, whether it be that God exists, or that there is no god. Parents can influence their children, and society at large can influence the chidren of that society. No reasonable person could doubt it. Their minds are likely to be filled with whatever you put into them, whether religious or irreligious.

On the other hand, those children aren't mind numbed zombies, either. More importantly, they will not be children forever. You can do what you want to try and get them to believe your religion and you can bias them toward belief, but if it doesn't make sense to them, they'll mumble the words until they can make their own car insurance payments and then they will give up the faith.

So, I would say that children are not perfectly capable of sorting out truths from falsehood, nor are adults perfectly capable of brainwashing children into believing whatever they wish the kids to believe. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Meadmaker]

Jesus H. Christ I'm an ***** jew! Or maybe you're an atheist along with all the other jews, christians, muslims, and Bob Marley worshippers.:confused:

Nice evasion but I said, "important things." Things that seperate your religion from the others,

Don't you think it's a bit pretentious to tell people what is important? I'm absolutely certain that there are a lot of people in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples that teach that the important things about their religion are the things they have in common with the other religions.

or at least things that define what you must believe to belong to your religion, and that at the same time are true.

I am also extremely confident that if you were to ask the rabbi at the synagogue I attend whether it is more important to believe the list I posted, or more important to believe in God, he will tell you the former.

[Meadmaker]

I'm an ***** jew!

And by the way, "Jew" is a proper noun, and thus should be capitalized, while "*****" is an ordinary adjective, and thus should not.

[ponderingturtle]

In my state, it's illegal for girls 14 and under to marry even with parental consent. That would qualify as statuatory rape here. At any rate, I think we can agree that it isn't a mainstream religion in the U.S.

But it would fit more into the religion catagory than cult.

So we just have to let them force their children into believing that homosexuality is sinful and can be cured through jesus. That is a mainstream religious belief. So as they view such things as positive we should also.

[ponderingturtle]

How about this list?

These are the obligations without measure, whose reward, too, is without measure:

To honor father and mother;

Why? This assumes that they are worthy of an honor.

see this This I Believe (http://www.thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?topessays=1&uid=33026)

Recently I emailed my father. I wrote: ''It was good to hear from you. I’m glad you’re well. Take care.'' I last heard from him he emailed my webpage wishing me a happy belated birthday. He wrote in February. My birthday was in October.

Forgetting my birthday is the least of my father’s failings. I was five when my parents divorced. He moved across the country and I rarely saw or heard from him. When I was 17, I watched him beat a woman in the street. His violence wasn’t a revelation. I’d already witnessed him shoot my mother

How much honor does that man deserve?

[Beth]

I'm posting the definition we're discussing again. It get's hard to recall after so many posts.

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.

Direct would be an open, direct statement : Questioning our agreed upon theology is forbidden. It will result in shunning. But they don't say that...it's just how it turns out when one attempts to understand from a perspective of disagreement.
You already mentioned ostricism under the 'powerful peer pressure' point. At any rate, I find it hard to fathom that people would consider parents sending their children to Sunday school as an "unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control". In general, it just doesn't fit that description.

Well, I can think of at least a few examples that are harmful. Does living with a daily sense of guilt and shame over masturbation count? What about the shame that gay kids feel? Yes, I agree that some people are harmed by some churchesm but in terms of defining whether or not mainstream churches constitute a totalist type cult, no. I think that churches that would insist that parents cut off contact with openly gay children would be crossing that line, but that's the strict fundamentalists, not the mainstream.

Not strictly forbidden but it's strongly encouraged that they "not be unequally yoked with unbelievers". Yes, but cults strickly forbid it and will even take steps to prevent contact over the objections of the individual. That churches only discourage such contact rather than forbidding it is an indication they are NOT a cult.


I dunno...the freeflow chanting of many Sunday and Wednesday night worship services can be pretty darn hypnotic. If you say so. But I think when they talk about "use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" they are referring to techniques like keeping people awake for 20 hours a day and never allowing them to be without a cult companion who constantly talks about how great the group and the group's leader is, not chanting in unison for 5 to 10 minutes once or twice a week.

Would you say the mega churches are more dogmatic or inclusive?
In my experience, here in the south, the megachurches are all extremely dogmatic, and the inclusive churches are both rare and smaller. I don't have much experience with megachurches. I live in a modest sized city in the midwest; we have a few such churches here, but I've never attended services at any of them. Also dogmatic and inclusive are not mutually exclusive properties. Theoretically, a church could be dogmatically inclusive.

That is what kids in the youthgroups of the megachurches are taught. It's in Jr. High where those teachings start popping up. It's not some rare exception. I'm not sure how to prove this, though. I'm sorry, but I'm not following you here. Going back through our posts, I think this is referring to the 'information management' aspects of cults. I'm not sure what 'teahcings' you're referring to here or how they relate to the 'information management' aspect of cults - usually accomplished by getting cult members away from the rest of society where the group leaders can control their access to other information.
I'm talking about the giant protestant Evangelical churches. The ones with very in depth, all consuming youth programs and discipleship programs. These are simply not rare exceptions. This is very much a big chunk of "mainstream Christianity'. Okay, it's a big chunk of mainstream religion, but I don't think you've made a good case for their being cults.

It's nothing like goth culture or fan clubs. Nothing. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that goth culture or fan clubs were like churchs, just that some elements of the above definition of totalist cult is present in those groups. That doesn't make them cults either.

In a great many of the churches in America with 6,000+ membership, basically all the elements of brainwashy cults are present. It's just accepted as "normal" because it's popular. No, I don't think all the elements are there. Yes, some of the elements are there, but not enough to convince me that evangelical churches are as cultish as the moonies.
That said, I'm still not part of the "religion is child abuse" camp. I mean, I guess it flirts with the line at times, but I find the idea of legally forbidding it even more frightening. Thanks. I'm glad to hear that. That's my biggest concern. Such bans have occurred in other places and times and the results have never been pleasant.

And I agree with you that there are some aspects of fundamentalist churches that are harmful to some people. In particular their attitude towards homosexuality can be very damaging to gay people and their relationships with their families.

[kellyb]

You already mentioned ostricism under the 'powerful peer pressure' point. At any rate, I find it hard to fathom that people would consider parents sending their children to Sunday school as an "unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control". In general, it just doesn't fit that description
I'm really talking about the intense youth group stuff that starts around 7th grade...not sunday school so much.

Yes, I agree that some people are harmed by some churchesm but in terms of defining whether or not mainstream churches constitute a totalist type cult, no. I think that churches that would insist that parents cut off contact with openly gay children would be crossing that line, but that's the strict fundamentalists, not the mainstream.

The JW's are the only group I can think of where parents might be told to totally cut contact with their children. But either way, I think fundamentalism is part of mainstream Christianity.

Yes, but cults strickly forbid it and will even take steps to prevent contact over the objections of the individual. That churches only discourage such contact rather than forbidding it is an indication they are NOT a cult.

It doesn't matter if they strictly forbid it or not. Kids who don't act like "good Christians" and do what they're supposed to do get socially punished. They get snubbed by the church leaders and their peers within the group. The pressure to do everything "right" is really quite strong.

If you say so. But I think when they talk about "use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" they are referring to techniques like keeping people awake for 20 hours a day and never allowing them to be without a cult companion who constantly talks about how great the group and the group's leader is, not chanting in unison for 5 to 10 minutes once or twice a week.

I think there's a spectrum of brainwashy creepy stuff, I guess. Most bona fide cults aren't completely extreme on every point.

I don't have much experience with megachurches. I live in a modest sized city in the midwest; we have a few such churches here, but I've never attended services at any of them. Also dogmatic and inclusive are not mutually exclusive properties. Theoretically, a church could be dogmatically inclusive.
I think they are mutually exclusive. I guess by "dogmatic" I'm meaning in following the Bible as a key part of the dogma, though.

I'm sorry, but I'm not following you here. Going back through our posts, I think this is referring to the 'information management' aspects of cults. I'm not sure what 'teahcings' you're referring to here or how they relate to the 'information management' aspect of cults - usually accomplished by getting cult members away from the rest of society where the group leaders can control their access to other information.

What I'm saying is that teachings like "Don't listen to secular radio; listen to the Christian stations"..."Don't watch the Discovery channel; it's controlled by Darwinists"..."Don't get your news from channels that push a homosexual agenda" are MAINSTREAM teachings in youth groups. These are the kinds of things they're talking about on Wednesday nights.

ETA: I really didn't explain my train of thought there well. Sorry. I was thinking of a personal anecdote. When I dutifully informed my church-attending family in the 8th grade that the Discovery channel was part of a massive Satanic overtake of the media, they were SHOCKED. They went to the adult sunday morning service every week, and had no idea that those kinds of ideas really were considered "the truth" by the church elders. The "extremism" isn't pushed on the adults the way it is on the preteens and teens in the large evangelical/fundamentalist churches. What's common in youth groups isn't addressed on Sunday mornings in the big services a lot of times.

Okay, it's a big chunk of mainstream religion, but I don't think you've made a good case for their being cults.
I think you might be defining "cult" as anything you personally find "way over the line"?

No, I don't think all the elements are there. Yes, some of the elements are there, but not enough to convince me that evangelical churches are as cultish as the moonies.

What do the moonies do that's so much worse?

Thanks. I'm glad to hear that. That's my biggest concern. Such bans have occurred in other places and times and the results have never been pleasant.

I don't think it would even work in the US anyway. The fundies over here would see this as absolute proof that Jesus was about to come back and the tribulation was starting or something. Which would actually be sort of understandable, I guess....lol

[Beth]

I'm really talking about the intense youth group stuff that starts around 7th grade...not sunday school so much.

The JW's are the only group I can think of where parents might be told to totally cut contact with their children. But either way, I think fundamentalism is part of mainstream Christianity. The Amish as well, not just for homosexuality but also for simply being a non-believer. Are the Amish a cult? They seem to fit the definition fairly well. The thing that sets them apart for me is that they don't actively recruit others to join them, much less use deceptive or unethical means to do so.

It doesn't matter if they strictly forbid it or not. Kids who don't act like "good Christians" and do what they're supposed to do get socially punished. They get snubbed by the church leaders and their peers within the group. The pressure to do everything "right" is really quite strong. I agree that the peer pressure is quite strong. Peer pressure is quite strong at that age, whether you're discussing christians, goths, druggies, or athletes. But I think that it makes a huge difference whether contact with those outside the group is strictly forbidden or merely discouraged. If it's strictly forbidden or allowed only under close supervision by other members of the group, then you have good case that the organization is a cult. If it is merely discouraged, then I don't think it fits the definition of a cult.

I think there's a spectrum of brainwashy creepy stuff, I guess. Most bona fide cults aren't completely extreme on every point. I agree, there's a spectrum. I guess we just disagree on where to draw the line on what is and isn't a cult. I just don't think that typical church services, even if they do include some chanting in unison, qualifies as cultish.
What I'm saying is that teachings like "Don't listen to secular radio; listen to the Christian stations"..."Don't watch the Discovery channel; it's controlled by Darwinists"..."Don't get your news from channels that push a homosexual agenda" are MAINSTREAM teachings in youth groups. These are the kinds of things they're talking about on Wednesday nights.

Again, this is like the isolation issue. Simply discouraging their members from getting their information from sources they don't trust is not the same as cults which forbid or actively work to prevent their members from having access to other sources of information.

I think you might be defining "cult" as anything you personally find "way over the line"? I'm just using the definition provided in the report that was linked to earlier.

What do the moonies do that's so much worse?
Hmm...I going off of some rather old memories, so this is probably out of date with their current practices, but my recollection was that they would invite unsuspecting prospects (usually young adults or older teens) to a 'weekend retreat'. Once there, the potential recruites were not allowed any time alone, they were not allowed much sleep (2 to 4 hours a night) and were subjected to a constant barrage of lectures and sermons about the church. If they didn't join voluntarily after 3 days of this (many did), sometimes they weren't allowed to leave anyway. Once they joined, they weren't allowed contact with anyone who was not a member until they had 'moved up' in the organization. I also recall a mass wedding cermony involving hundreds of couples, paired by the church leader, many of whom never met thier spouse prior to the ceremony.

Let's go back and compare that to the definition:

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing - Yes - the Reverend Moon
and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Yes. Described above. Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc. Yes - Described above. I think the moonies, at least the way the organization operated back in the 70's and 80's easily fit the definition of a totalist cult. I don't think that mega-churches do, despite their sometimes overbearing tactics.

I don't think it would even work in the US anyway. The fundies over here would see this as absolute proof that Jesus was about to come back and the tribulation was starting or something. Which would actually be sort of understandable, I guess....lol
I wish I shared your confidence. :(

[Meadmaker]

Why? This assumes that they are worthy of an honor.

see this This I Believe (http://www.thisibelieve.org/dsp_ShowEssay.php?topessays=1&uid=33026)



How much honor does that man deserve?

I'm sure that for every piece of advice, no matter how good it is, one can find an exception. There are times when it is appropriate to steal, covet, kill, and commit adultery.

Nevertheless, thou shalt not do any of these things is still good advice.

[kellyb]

The Amish as well, not just for homosexuality but also for simply being a non-believer. Are the Amish a cult? They seem to fit the definition fairly well. The thing that sets them apart for me is that they don't actively recruit others to join them.
I guess I do see the Amish as a type of cult in a way. It's just sort of different because they're a whole different culture entirely.

I agree that the peer pressure is quite strong. Peer pressure is quite strong at that age, whether you're discussing christians, goths, druggies, or athletes. But I think that it makes a huge difference whether contact with those outside the group is strictly forbidden or merely discouraged. If it's strictly forbidden or allowed only under close supervision by other members of the group, then you have good case that the organization is a cult. If it is merely discouraged, then I don't think it fits the definition of a cult.

But the effect ends up being the same, whether it's completely forbidden or just strongly discouraged. So I think they're more similar than different.

I agree, there's a spectrum. I guess we just disagree on where to draw the line on what is and isn't a cult. I just don't think that typical church services, even if they do include some chanting in unison, qualifies as cultish.

I dunno. To someone unfamiliar with Christianity, the Lord's Supper (communion) would probably seem extremely culty. I think a lot of it just doesn't seem so cultish to "us" because it's "normal" to people from a Christian country.

Again, this is like the isolation issue. Simply discouraging their members from getting their information from sources they don't trust is not the same as cults which forbid or actively working to prevent their members from having access to other sources of information.

Again, I think it is the same. Mainstream religion just makes it a self-imposed restricition, but the effect is the same. The cynic in me suspects that the only reason it's not overtly forbidden is that it would freak out new converts. So the method of it being a sort of restriction that one "grows into" as you "grow in Christ" or whatever is simply more effective in the long run.

I'm just using the definition provided in the report that was linked to earlier.
It never specifies that every element be present in the extreme. And there is no definite, solid definition of a cult, anyway.

Hmm...I going off of some rather old memories, so this is probably out of date with their current practices, but my recollection was that they would invite unsuspecting prospects (usually young adults or older teens) to a 'weekend retreat'. Once there, the potential recruites were not allowed any time alone, they were not allowed much sleep (2 to 4 hours a night) and were subjected to a constant barrage of lectures and sermons about the church. If they didn't join voluntarily after 3 days of this (many did), sometimes they weren't allowed to leave anyway. Once they joined, they weren't allowed contact with anyone who was not a member until they had 'moved up' in the organization. I also recall a mass wedding cermony involving hundreds of couples, paired by the church leader, many of whom never met thier spouse prior to the ceremony.

I think some of that might be a myth, to some extent at least. The mass wedding stuff is for real, though, from what I understand. That's more simply bizarre than cultish, though, I think.


Yes - Described above. I think the moonies, at least the way the organization operated back in the 70's and 80's easily fit the definition of a totalist cult. I don't think that mega-churches do, despite their sometimes overbearing tactics.

Well, at the least, the evangelical mega-churches are "soft core" totalist cults. How's that? :)

I wish I shared your confidence.
It'll never happen, anyway. Not in our lifetimes, at least.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure that for every piece of advice, no matter how good it is, one can find an exception. There are times when it is appropriate to steal, covet, kill, and commit adultery.

Nevertheless, thou shalt not do any of these things is still good advice.

I don't think it is good advice as a general statement. I think there are enough bad parents out there that honoring is silly.

For example if your mother takes a credit card out in your name with out informing you as a teen, racks up dept for you, how much honor is deserved.

To honor or not honor should be entirely based on their actions and history.

[ponderingturtle]

I guess I do see the Amish as a type of cult in a way. It's just sort of different because they're a whole different culture entirely.

If the FLDS are a cult it is likely the Amish are as well. As well as any of the various religious comunities that isolate themselves in this country.

[patrick767]

I am sick of debating hypocrites. When you make that list of important things religions teach that are true, then I will make a list of brainwashing techniques religions use. And don't ask for any other lists until you provide something for your side of the debate.


First, I am not religious. Just to get that out of the way...

Anyway, most people trying to follow this thread are probably sick of a debate with someone who's view of religion is horribly myopic and who's desire for the government to prevent the perceived "child abuse" of religious education would require an obscene level of government interference in our lives. Shall we charge people with a crime for taking their kids to church? I'll pass on living in any place where the state exerts so much power over the people. It evokes totalitarianism.


In my opinion, there isn't much difference between the desire to preserve christianity, judaism, islam, or any other rerligion and wanting to preserve the bubonic plague, polio, or cancer.

This statement is patently ridiculous and the best evidence of your extremely biased, extremely myopic view. Your equivocation of all religions, your focus entirely on the negatives of religious thought, and your equivocation of religion in general with disease makes it abundantly clear that you are so biased that any hope of a rational discussion will be in vain. I'm surprised the thread has made it this far.

[qayak]

And by the way, "Jew" is a proper noun, and thus should be capitalized, while "*****" is an ordinary adjective, and thus should not.

You will notice I don't capitalize jewish, christian, muslim, god, him, he, etc because I don't think any are deserving. I capitalize Jesus because there is evidence that he was a man that actually existed. I capitalize Norse, as in Norse gods or Roman as in Roman gods because they were a people that actually existed.

Religions and made up sky monkeys don't warrant capitalization.

[qayak]

First, I am not religious. Just to get that out of the way...

And that proves . . . . . . What exactly does that prove, again?

Anyway, most people trying to follow this thread are probably sick of a debate. . . [/QUOTE]

Well thank you, Oh Great and Powerful Patrick, for speaking for everyone.


. . . with someone who's view of religion is horribly myopic and who's desire for the government to prevent the perceived "child abuse" of religious education would require an obscene level of government interference in our lives. Shall we charge people with a crime for taking their kids to church? I'll pass on living in any place where the state exerts so much power over the people. It evokes totalitarianism.

It wouldn't be obscene at all. It would be a great use of government power and resources.

This statement is patently ridiculous and the best evidence of your extremely biased, extremely myopic view.

You can say it is ridiculous but can you give us an argument as to why that opinion is true? You're doing lots of typing but you're not saying much and you are certainlyu offering no support to your opinions.

Your equivocation of all religions, your focus entirely on the negatives of religious thought,. . .

Be fair now. We, including me, have asked for positives in case there are things we have missed but the supporters of childhood religious indoctrination have been unable to come up with anything. All negative = All bad.

. . . and your equivocation of religion in general with disease makes it abundantly clear that you are so biased that any hope of a rational discussion will be in vain. I'm surprised the thread has made it this far.

To paraphrase the eloquently words of others;

"When one person believes in make believe things we call them delusional, when a lot of people believe delusional things, we call it religion."

"A cult is a cult is a cult — unless it’s my religious group."

I think the analogy to killing diseases was quite fitting. Maybe a little unfair to the diseases but I'll apologize if they complain.

And don't be too surprised that the people who support religious indoctrination of children have kept this thread going for so long. They really believe it is important to maintain the strength of religions and keep children under control. You can't expect them to go down quickly. Patience my friend, we'll get them in the end. :D

[mijopaalmc]

You will notice I don't capitalize jewish, christian, muslim, god, him, he, etc because I don't think any are deserving. I capitalize Jesus because there is evidence that he was a man that actually existed. I capitalize Norse, as in Norse gods or Roman as in Roman gods because they were a people that actually existed.

Religions and made up sky monkeys don't warrant capitalization.

So Zeus and Odin were real people?

[Beth]

I think I'm mostly just repeating myself now, so I'm going to skip quite a bit of this.

But the effect ends up being the same, whether it's completely forbidden or just strongly discouraged. So I think they're more similar than different.

Again, I think it is the same. Mainstream religion just makes it a self-imposed restricition, but the effect is the same. The cynic in me suspects that the only reason it's not overtly forbidden is that it would freak out new converts. So the method of it being a sort of restriction that one "grows into" as you "grow in Christ" or whatever is simply more effective in the long run. I'm not sure if the effect is the same, but the distinction between self-imposed restrictions and restrictions imposed by others is a very important one to me. I see at as the difference between freedom and slavery.


Well, at the least, the evangelical mega-churches are "soft core" totalist cults. How's that? :) Okay :)


It'll never happen, anyway. Not in our lifetimes, at least.
Again, I wish I had your confidence. History has many stories of dissendent beliefs being brutally repressed in short order after a change in who holds power. :(

[qayak]

So Zeus and Odin were real people?

I know you are a little slow on the uptake but I said the "Norse" and the "Romans" were real people (along with the Celts, Innuit, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.) so I capitalize them when saying "Norse gods" or "Roman gods."

Of course, with your religious background, you would never let the truth get int he way of a good story, now would you? :rolleyes:

[Meadmaker]

I never know quite what to think about comments like this:

It wouldn't be obscene at all. It would be a great use of government power and resources.

If taken at face value, qayak is seriously calling for arresting people who take their kids to church. Earlier in the thread, he said he would support literally any government initiative aimed at suppressing religion. On a purely emotional note, he compares religion to disease, and apologizes to disease.

Obviously, his hate speech toward religion is way out of the mainstream, even among unapologetic atheists. Also, his calls for government action are not merely way outside the mainstream, but are so clearly against the Constitution of the United States that there is no reasonable possibility that anything like them could become law, even if atheism became the primary religious belief in our country and we started electing atheists to public office. (As an aside, I expect that last part to happen within a generation, but that's somewhat speculative.)

Nevertheless, as Beth said, strange things happen when power shifts dramatically. The rhetoric flowing from best selling authors lately is quite strident. It's no surprise that it inspires the even more hate filled rants such as the ones seen in this thread, and I worry that some day it will actually catch on and we will see a government that is not simply neutral toward religion, but actively hostile. I would feel a lot more comfortable if I heard more voices of reason who said that religion was a quaint relic of yesteryear whose usefulness is behind us, but which is, for the most part, harmless. In my more optimistic moments I would like to go one step farther and hear people note that religion actually has positive elements that should be kept even as belief in gods erodes.

Meanwhile, qayak, if you find yourself typing "***** jew" again, you really ought to do some editing.

[qayak]

I never know quite what to think about comments like this:



If taken at face value, qayak is seriously calling for arresting people who take their kids to church. Earlier in the thread, he said he would support literally any government initiative aimed at suppressing religion. On a purely emotional note, he compares religion to disease, and apologizes to disease.

Obviously, his hate speech toward religion is way out of the mainstream, even among unapologetic atheists. Also, his calls for government action are not merely way outside the mainstream, but are so clearly against the Constitution of the United States that there is no reasonable possibility that anything like them could become law, even if atheism became the primary religious belief in our country and we started electing atheists to public office. (As an aside, I expect that last part to happen within a generation, but that's somewhat speculative.)

Nevertheless, as Beth said, strange things happen when power shifts dramatically. The rhetoric flowing from best selling authors lately is quite strident. It's no surprise that it inspires the even more hate filled rants such as the ones seen in this thread, and I worry that some day it will actually catch on and we will see a government that is not simply neutral toward religion, but actively hostile. I would feel a lot more comfortable if I heard more voices of reason who said that religion was a quaint relic of yesteryear whose usefulness is behind us, but which is, for the most part, harmless. In my more optimistic moments I would like to go one step farther and hear people note that religion actually has positive elements that should be kept even as belief in gods erodes.

Keep repeating this to yourself and you might start to believe it.

Meanwhile, qayak, if you find yourself typing "***** jew" again, you really ought to do some editing.

Go ahead, you wanna do it! Your argument is so weak that you are just dying to play the "persecuted jew" card. Unfortunately, any intelligent person reading what I wrote knows the "*****" was an indication of my surprise in finding out that I am jewish. If you had been christian and listed those things, I would have written "Muhammad be damned, I'm an ***** christian!" indicating my surprise at finding out I was a christian.

But . . . you could always plead your case to the mods, they might disagree with me and rule in your favour. They may even edit my post to make you feel better! :)

[mijopaalmc]

I know you are a little slow on the uptake but I said the "Norse" and the "Romans" were real people (along with the Celts, Innuit, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.) so I capitalize them when saying "Norse gods" or "Roman gods."

Of course, with your religious background, you would never let the truth get int he way of a good story, now would you? :rolleyes:

Who's being slow on the uptake?:rolleyes:

I've told you multiple times that I'm an atheist, regardless of the fact that I went to a Catholic high school. The only reason I can see that you keep insisting that I am religious is because you want write me off as "some crazy fundy". This in turn allows you to leave your beliefs about religion untouched because no-one "like you" is criticizing your beliefs.

I also think that it is interesting that you don't think of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as "real people" at least in the sense that the Norse and Romans were. As I recall, one of the first steps to denying groups of people rights, especially the right of self-determination, is to claim they don't constitute a "people". For instance, I have seen the claim that the Palestinians are not a "real people" and therefore have no claim as Palestinians to the Occupied Territories.

[qayak]

The only reason I can see that you keep insisting that I am religious is because you want write me off as "some crazy fundy".

Or, it could be that your actions betray you.

I also think that it is interesting that you don't think of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as "real people" at least in the sense that the Norse and Romans were.

I didn't say that. I said that gods are not real people and that religions did not deserve to be capitalized. You can drop the "Look Out, It's Hitler!" fear mongering.

[Meadmaker]

Or, it could be that your actions betray you.



I didn't say that. I said that gods are not real people and that religions did not deserve to be capitalized. You can drop the "Look Out, It's Hitler!" fear mongering.

It could be that your actions betray you.

It sure seems to me that you were asked whether parents taking their children to church ought to be arrested, and you replied that this was a good use of government power. Did I misunderstand? Likewise, when asked what government initiatives you would support to reduce religious influence, you said you would support any goverenment initiatives to do that. If you really meant those things, then "Look out! It's Hitler!" doesn't seem like much of an exaggeration.

It would probably be more accurate to say, "Look out! It's someone who will follow the next Hitler who comes along!"

[mijopaalmc]

Or, it could be that your actions betray you.

So, by your logic, since you have been implicitly defending GLBT individuals against religious bigotry, you yourself are an GLBT individual?

I seriously don't understand how defending people's rights to freedom of worship and exercise of religion, rights that appear in almost every foundational document of the Western nations, automatically makes one religious.

I didn't say that. I said that gods are not real people and that religions did not deserve to be capitalized. You can drop the "Look Out, It's Hitler!" fear mongering.

Again with the "real people" shtick. The Norse and the Romans were no more monolithic that the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. You are making a false distinction in order to justify your disdain for certain people, which is utterly intolerable.

Furthermore, you do not have the moral high ground to accuse me of fear mongering. First, because what you said I said is not actually what I said. I didn't say that you thought Jews, Christians, and Muslims were subhuman and therefore not deserving of right, which is a vital part of the Nazi ideology; I said that it was explicitly clear in your writing that you thought that Jews, Christians, and Muslims were not "real people" in the sense that they did not constitute ethnicities and therefore didn't deserve the same respect, possibly extending to their right of self-determination, that ethnicities do. Secondly, the whole "religion is child abuse" is an argument from emotion. It is clear that its advocates are trying to equate something that society in general finds acceptable (i.e., bringing children up in a religion) with something society in general find unacceptable (i.e., child abuse) in order to make the acceptable thing unacceptable, much as fundamentalists try to equate the societally acceptable homosexuality with societally unacceptable pedophilia in order to strip GLBT individuals of rights.

[qayak]

Again with the "real people" shtick. The Norse and the Romans were no more monolithic that the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. You are making a false distinction in order to justify your disdain for certain people, which is utterly intolerable.

I write, "You are an atheist" and I write "You are a jew." Are you telling me that being a jew elevates one to some special status that atheists aren't capable of? Apparently, membership in the realm of make believe sky jockeys has some special meaning to you.

Being Roman means you belonged to a certain culture and I hold cultures in high regard. Being jewish, christian, muslim, etc. means you believe a certain set of lies indoctrinated into you as a child. I have zero respect for those lies.

Now, to demonstrate my respect for the people who believe those lies, I would write something like, "This is Joe Wilson, he is christian." See how the real person's name is capitalized? See how the particular package of lies he believes isn't?

[qayak]

It could be that your actions betray you.

It sure seems to me that you were asked whether parents taking their children to church ought to be arrested, and you replied that this was a good use of government power. Did I misunderstand? Likewise, when asked what government initiatives you would support to reduce religious influence, you said you would support any goverenment initiatives to do that. If you really meant those things, then "Look out! It's Hitler!" doesn't seem like much of an exaggeration.

It would probably be more accurate to say, "Look out! It's someone who will follow the next Hitler who comes along!"

I think arresting them would be too expensive. Instead they should simply be fined along witht he church. I think religion is more harmful to children than speeding. A speeding ticket in my neck of the woods starts at $115.00, the fine for parents indoctrinating their children should be significantly higher.

Actually, it was religious people who followed along with Hitler, specifically the catholic church. In my system, people would be very unlikely to follow such evil, they won't be indoctrinated as children and will be far better able to see someone like Hitler for what they are.

Religious people are just too willing to follow any BS that comes along.

[mijopaalmc]

I think arresting them would be too expensive. Instead they should simply be fined along witht he church. I think religion is more harmful to children than speeding. A speeding ticket in my neck of the woods starts at $115.00, the fine for parents indoctrinating their children should be significantly higher.

So you think people guilty of child abuse, as you have called bringing a child up in a religion, should only be fined?

Obviously, you must be making some sort of distinction between what is currently legally actionable child abuse and the "child abuse" you see religion perpetrating, because I would like to think that you are not advocating just fining people who beat their children or lock their children in the basement.

[six7s]

Religious people are just too willing to follow any BS that comes along.

I agree

However, we are all creatures of habit and I very much doubt they will change over-night following the introduction of your fines...

[Meadmaker]

I think arresting them would be too expensive. Instead they should simply be fined along witht he church. I think religion is more harmful to children than speeding. A speeding ticket in my neck of the woods starts at $115.00, the fine for parents indoctrinating their children should be significantly higher.

Actually, it was religious people who followed along with Hitler, specifically the catholic church. In my system, people would be very unlikely to follow such evil, they won't be indoctrinated as children and will be far better able to see someone like Hitler for what they are.

Religious people are just too willing to follow any BS that comes along.

I admire your honesty.

And it is no exaggeration when I say that your position makes you just as bad as the average Nazi. Not as bad as Hitler. Not Himmler. Not Goebels. Not even a camp guard. Just your run of the mill, numbered in the millions, Nazi. A Joe Ratzinger sort of Nazi.*


Of course, the constitution prevents your proposal from being enacted, but if you managed to do it, you do realize it wouldn't just be fines, of course, don't you? Because once you enacted it, the armed resistance would start, and then stronger measures would be needed to keep people like me in our place and protect the security of decent people. Probably, no politician would be brazen enough to even propose fines as a start. They might start by banning religious schools, though, and that would lead at the very least to violent protests, and then there would have to be stricter measures and, well, you can read about it in the history books if that's your cup of tea.



To: Everyone that isn't qayak.

If Kurious Kathy comes in and says that Jesus loves you, she is typically set upon as if she were a fawn that wandered into a wolf pack. When discussing someone who wants to include a religious speech at a graduation ceremony, the United States Constitution is loudly defended against such a person, who would trample our rights. qayak has just informed me that he would have me fined for going to the synagogue with my son. (And since I wouldn't pay the fine, it would inevitably lead to my arrest and detention.) Would it be too much to ask that a few more people chime in and defend the Constitution here as well, and notify him that even though they share his ideological goal of ending the reign of religion over the minds of men, they disagree with his proposed means?

*I don't admire the Nazis, but I was indoctrinated into certain conventions of grammar as a student, so it requires both Nazi and Jew to be capitalized. I don't capitalize qayak because you chose not to capitalize it yourself, and I try to remember that convention.

:Edited to correct a previous error in the statement about graduations.

[quixotecoyote]

Would it be too much to ask that a few more people chime in and defend the Constitution here as well, and notify him that even though they share his ideological goal of ending the reign of religion over the minds of men, they disagree with his proposed means?



How about not? qayak has made a very firm case that this is constituionally appropriate. The first amendement can be broadly interpreted as meaning freedom of religion. By indoctrinating your child you are infringing on his or her freedom of religon. I see no reason why your freedom of speech should trump your child's freedom of religion.

That said, qayak's ideas is ridiculously unworkable. It's unenforcable, because while we could fine you for bringing your child to a church for indoctrination, we can't be in your house where most of it happens anyway. Also, as you said, nuts like you probably would start a rebellion over being prohibitied from publically lying to your children. In a different political climate that might not be the case, but then we probably wouldn't have the need for such a law in the first place.

[six7s]

To: Everyone that isn't qayak.

If Kurious Kathy comes in and says that Jesus loves you, she is typically set upon as if she were a fawn that wandered into a wolf pack

That's cos, like those annoying telemarketers that spam-phone during dinner, she's selling something we already have, which is far more flexible and durable than the hackneyed model she is flogging. Furthermore ours not only costs nothing but thought, it appreciates in value with use

Would it be too much to ask that a few more people chime in and defend the Constitution here as well, and notify him that even though they share his ideological goal of ending the reign of religion over the minds of men, they disagree with his proposed means?

Although not on 'Constitutional' grounds (being a non-UsBushistani), I think you'll find I have expressed that I don't endorse qayak's proposed means - primarily because I have reason to doubt that they will acheive the ends of a population free of woo by reasoned choice

[Meadmaker]

Although not on 'Constitutional' grounds (being a non-UsBushistani), I think you'll find I have expressed that I don't endorse qayak's proposed means - primarily because I have reason to doubt that they will acheive the ends of a population free of woo by reasoned choice

And I thank you.

[qayak]

So you think people guilty of child abuse, as you have called bringing a child up in a religion, should only be fined?

If I have a child riding in my car without having them in the appropriate restraint, I get a fine. Fines are good because they help pay the cost of enforcement.

Here in British Columbia, the cops don't even investigate or raid marijuana grow-ops because it is too expensive and is a huge drain on the criminal justice system.

Instead, the municipality files a freedom of information request with the public utility company to get power consumption numbers for every residence in the city. They target the properties with huge power consumption by sending in inspectors who immediately condemn the buildings when a grow-op is found.

The house next to mine was rented to growers. They were caught within two weeks of the grow-op going in. Although perfectly safe, the property was condemned. The owners of the property had to pay over 8 thousand dollars to have their property re-certified. (It was the owner who called the cops when he suspected the grow-op.)

The real criminals in all this? They packed up their stuff and moved. Didn't cost them anything except their damage deposit of $700.00. Last week, Surrey, the grow-op capital of BC was declared grow-op free.

So, yes, it is okay to punish criminal activity with fines. It is also very effective.

[qayak]

How about not? qayak has made a very firm case that this is constituionally appropriate. The first amendement can be broadly interpreted as meaning freedom of religion. By indoctrinating your child you are infringing on his or her freedom of religon. I see no reason why your freedom of speech should trump your child's freedom of religion.

That's it! My whole point and exactly why I would support any initiative and would do it myself if I had the opportunity. Maybe when I become Supreme King of Canada next year.

[Beth]

How about not? qayak has made a very firm case that this is constituionally appropriate. The first amendement can be broadly interpreted as meaning freedom of religion. By indoctrinating your child you are infringing on his or her freedom of religon. I see no reason why your freedom of speech should trump your child's freedom of religion.

This isn't a workable argument because children don't have the same rights as adults. I've heard similar arguments to ban other things such as spankings or circumcision. Funny, but nobody ever argues that parents don't have the right to ground their teenagers or give their toddler a time-out even though those are clear violations of their constitutional rights too.
That said, qayak's ideas is ridiculously unworkable. It's unenforcable, because while we could fine you for bringing your child to a church for indoctrination, we can't be in your house where most of it happens anyway. Also, as you said, nuts like you probably would start a rebellion over being prohibitied from publically lying to your children. In a different political climate that might not be the case, but then we probably wouldn't have the need for such a law in the first place.

It's unworkable yes, but I'm as bothered by those advocating rational solutions and critical thinking espousing it as a good idea as I am by christians who go into hate-filled rants about homosexuals and how various sorts of private activities ought to be illegal. It's a similar attitude of intolerance and such stances are similarly a betrayal of the very values they are claiming they cherish most.

I feel it's not just unworkable and unenforceable, it's a really really bad idea. It's trampling all over the rights of other people to decide for themselves what they believe and to transmit their beliefs, along with their values and judgements and family culture, to their children. Even if you are only suggesting fines for those caught in the act, I put such a suggestion right along side making homosexual behavior illegal and fining people when they are caught engaging in such activities.

[quixotecoyote]

This isn't a workable argument because children don't have the same rights as adults. I've heard similar arguments to ban other things such as spankings or circumcision. Funny, but nobody ever argues that parents don't have the right to ground their teenagers or give their toddler a time-out even though those are clear violations of their constitutional rights too.
.


That's funny, I support banning spanking and circumscion too. Spanking being a less ration argument as I had an abusive father, but circumcision I argue aginst on child rights grounds.

Children do not have the rights of adults, you are correct there. They do have some. I argue that freedom from having religion forced on them should be one they have, especially as it will effect them after they are an adult (similar to circumcision).

It's not a coincidence that the majority of believers in a given region have the same beliefs as their parents. You don't see a spontaneous generational conversion from Islam in Saudi Arabia and you don't see a generational converstion to Buddhism in America. This suggests to me that children are not acheiving free choice in their selection of religion, because at the least you'd see a more even spread globally. It suggests indoctrination, coersion, and an impedidement of the right to freely choose.

[Beth]

That's funny, I support banning spanking and circumscion too. Spanking being a less ration argument as I had an abusive father, but circumcision I argue aginst on child rights grounds.

Children do not have the rights of adults, you are correct there. They do have some. I argue that freedom from having religion forced on them should be one they have, especially as it will effect them after they are an adult (similar to circumcision).

And I reject that argument because I feel that the rights of the parent (or whomever is raising the child) are of more importance.

I'm sorry you had an abusive father. They are all too common. I didn't. My own father is absolutely terrific. One of the finest people I've ever known. So is my mother. They managed to raise four children into self-supporting adults, some of whom still share their faith, some who don't. My brother and his wife raised their children much as our parents did us. They have managed to raise two children into intelligent, capable young adults. They did all three of those things you would argue they have no right to do. Didn't seem to affect their ability to raise children into adults I'm glad to have in my community.

I actually find the arguments against spanking to be the most rational of the three. If you take the time to look deeply into the research behind recommended child rearing practices, spanking rates pretty far down the list. They have a high cost in terms of damage to the relationship and a low rate of success at extinguishing undesirable behavior. Not to mention the issue of when the line is crossed into abuse.

But after giving the issue a lot of thought and discussion, I came to the conclusion that even though I felt not-spanking was the best rational choice by a wide margin, it was not sufficient justification to make it a crime. Not even a minor one only punishable by a fine. I have far more concern regarding the inevitable damage to parent/child relationship that would result from the sort of intrusive govermental policies you are supporting than I have concern over the damage to the children. All in all, I'd rather see spanking disappear without coercion, which I would expect to take several generations.

Anyway, sorry to get off on a rant there. It used to be one of my favorite topics to argue.


It's not a coincidence that the majority of believers in a given region have the same beliefs as their parents. You don't see a spontaneous generational conversion from Islam in Saudi Arabia and you don't see a generational converstion to Buddhism in America. This suggests to me that children are not acheiving free choice in their selection of religion, because at the least you'd see a more even spread globally. It suggests indoctrination, coersion, and an impedidement of the right to freely choose. I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.

Bottom line, it simply doesn't seem rational to me in the slightest to support such policies. It's an extreme measure for a problem that, as near as I can tell, has no documented objective and quantifiable evidence to support it's existance. Extreme solutions to non-existant problems are a recipe for serious trouble.

[quixotecoyote]

I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.



Let's hear your alternate explanation. If it's not parental indoctrination, why do so many children follow the religion of their parents?

[Beth]

Let's hear your alternate explanation. If it's not parental indoctrination, why do so many children follow the religion of their parents?

Parental indoctrination certainly plays a role in making the choice, but that doesn't imply that it is a an impediment to freely choosing as an adult. If the benefits of staying outweigh the costs of changing for most people, then most people will keep the religion they were raised in. After all, if they have no compelling reason to change, then there are advantages to keeping the same religion as their parents and siblings. They already know the dogma, the rites, etc. from being raised in it. There is comfort in the familiar. When someone rejects their parent's religion, there is a cost in terms of damage to the family relationships. Given that many people do change religions as an adult, I find it a reasonable hypothesis that those who wish to change can and that those who don't, choose not to.

[Slimething]

Parental indoctrination certainly plays a role in making the choice, but that doesn't imply that it is a an impediment to freely choosing as an adult.

I bolded the operative word. The second part of the sentence is a non-sequitor. There is no possible avenue for indoctrination to allow a free choice later on.

[Beth]

I bolded the operative word.

Thank you. I think it worth pointing out that the definition of that word varies tremendously and it is particularly prone to change in discussions of this nature. I was using the word in the way that so many people here do - i.e. parents who raise up their children to know and understand their religious beliefs and participate in some religious activities that are appropriate for their ages. People in this forum have defined such an upbringing as 'indoctrination'. However, when you claim that people cannot escape their indoctrination, I think you are using the word to refer to a harsher, more stringent situation. Something more akin to indoctrination into military service than forced attendance at Sunday School.

The second part of the sentence is a non-sequitor. There is no possible avenue for indoctrination to allow a free choice later on.

The evidence does not support that contention. You might want to check out "Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion" by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger. That book documents the results of their research into people who have changed their religious beliefs radically from their upbringing. Clearly, it's far more typical for people to choose to follow the religion they were raised in, but there's no evidence that people cannot choose to do otherwise.

[Henners]

I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.

Do you think that platitudes like that apply equally to the children in North Korea?

[Meadmaker]

I bolded the operative word. The second part of the sentence is a non-sequitor. There is no possible avenue for indoctrination to allow a free choice later on.


In casual conversation, it's all very well to say that indoctrination is bad, although you have to make sure that everyone knows that by "indoctrination", you are referring to brainwashing. The word could just mean education. (At least, that's what the dictionaries say. Here's the "American Heritage" dictionary's entry, quoted from dictionary.com.

1.To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2.To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. )

However, if we start talking about legislation instead of casual conversation I get a little bit more nervous. qayak wants to write tickets with $100+ fines for taking my son to the synagogue. Based on the fact that a whole lot of Jews stop going to synagogues as soon as their parents stop telling them they have to go, it would seem that whatever is going on at those places, it must not be the sort of indoctrination about which you are speaking. The people who stop going obviously make a choice not to go. Despite their obvious maintenance of free will in this matter, he's not taking any chances, and he'll be there with the ticket book.

I say that the desire to use legislation against religious groups makes him a lot like a Nazi, and I think that calls for that sort of restrictions on religious freedom are reprehensible.

But that's just me, I guess. If he had called for something truly odious, like giving government money to a church run soup kitchen, that would have brought forth howls of outrage. Barring children from church through legislation is nothing to get upset about, apparently.

Thank goodness there are people in the world who are thinking of the children and their welfare.

[qayak]

This isn't a workable argument because children don't have the same rights as adults.

And they shouldn't. They have different needs. I am not advocating banning religion for adults just the indoctrination of children. No one has argued against the right of an adult to sit in a car with the windows rolled up, in the sweltering heat of summer, while their spouse spends 4 or 5 hours gambling in a casino. However, we do argue against a parents right to leave their child in the car in summer while they go gamble. Different needs and rights.

And you are looking at this backwards. We put an age restriction on gun ownership. We prevent children from having guns until they are mature enough to understand the dangers. But with religious indoctrination you are advocating that children must be allowed to be indoctrinated BEFORE they understand the dangers. That is exactly backwards to your argument about gun ownership.

You are not protecting children as the gun laws do, you are protecting the systematic abuse of children.

. . . it's a really really bad idea. It's trampling all over the rights of other people to decide for themselves what they believe and to transmit their beliefs, along with their values and judgements and family culture, to their children.

Laws and customs change all the time. We ban many long held customs, female circumcision for example. We do not allow honour killings or gangrapes as suitable punishment for wrongs in the Indo-Canadian community although those are long held customs in their culture and religion.

The only difference here is that the restriction I argue for will have a profound affect on christianity as it is practiced int he West and while it is okay to restrict the practice of foreigners who are wrong about god anyway, it certainly isn't okay to restrict the customs of the one true religion . . . ours!


I put such a suggestion right along side making homosexual behavior illegal and fining people when they are caught engaging in such activities.

But we do restrict them. Homosexual behaviour is illegal when it is children involved. It is illegal for adults to initiate children into homosexual behaviour, or any sexual behaviour for that matter. That is something that is left up to children to decide when they reach the age of consent.

And it works! We know it works because homosexuals have kids who grow up to be straight and heterosexuals have kids that grow up to be gay. And it is a system that can be used a s a model for religious indoctrination.

[qayak]

In casual conversation, it's all very well to say that indoctrination is bad, although you have to make sure that everyone knows that by "indoctrination", you are referring to brainwashing. The word could just mean education. (At least, that's what the dictionaries say. Here's the "American Heritage" dictionary's entry, quoted from dictionary.com.

1.To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2.To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. )

But we aren't advocating indoctrinating them in another belief system. We are advocating allowing them the maturity to decide their own believe system.

I say that the desire to use legislation against religious groups makes him a lot like a Nazi, and I think that calls for that sort of restrictions on religious freedom are reprehensible.

You have not demonstrated that I am restricting religious freedom. Religious freedom means practicing your beliefs. Thrusting you beliefs on others is a violation of religious freedom. I am advocating an expansion to near universal religious freedom, which can only be a good thing.

You have a very screwed up view of Nazism. Didn't the Nazis give the Catholic church the right to indoctrinate all children in Germany? I believe the Vatican already had the right in Italy. Religious indoctrination is a sure sign of fascism and totalitarianism. As long as the church and the dictator are on the same page, of course.

[qayak]

I agree, it's not a coincidence, but the impediment of the right to freely choose has not been established. It's one hypothesis, but not the only one. And there is reasonable support for the idea that people can, in fact, freely choose regardless of how they are raised. It's simply that they choose to stay with the familiar family religion. Further, it hasn't been established that religion is bad for children with any sort of objective criteria.

Bottom line, it simply doesn't seem rational to me in the slightest to support such policies. It's an extreme measure for a problem that, as near as I can tell, has no documented objective and quantifiable evidence to support it's existance. Extreme solutions to non-existant problems are a recipe for serious trouble.

You are kidding, right?

How many children were injured by sharp objects on toy before standards were set? Well, to my knowledge, statistically very few. However, when it comes to the safety of children, one injury is too many.

How many children have been harmed by the toys in the current unsafe toy scandal? To my knowledge, none and yet look at the extreme measures being taken for this non-existent problem.

The point is, it is the FEW that child protection laws are designed for. They appear to protect the many but appearances can be deceiving.

Your belief that childhood indoctrination does not affect the ability of adults to make choices, is a extraordinary claim. Do you have some extraordinary evidence to back it up. I would settle for just ordinary evidence even. Can we get a reference to studies done?

[Meadmaker]

You have not demonstrated that I am restricting religious freedom.

Making it illegal to take children to a church isn't restricting religious freedom? Well, whatever. I'm sure I won't convince you otherwise, but I also sure wish somebody else would try.

You have a very screwed up view of Nazism. Didn't the Nazis give the Catholic church the right to indoctrinate all children in Germany? I believe the Vatican already had the right in Italy. Religious indoctrination is a sure sign of fascism and totalitarianism. As long as the church and the dictator are on the same page, of course.

Ah, yes, the old Nazi + Catholic conspiracy. I think I read about it in "Protocols of the Elders of Rome".

After the war, the nation of Israel sent their national symphony to Rome to play a concert for Pope Pius XII, in thanks for his efforts against Hitler and in protecting Italian Jews. I understand that some people think the church could have done more against Hitler, and I'm sure they could have, but the last time I checked, the government of Israel wasn't soft on Nazi sympathizers, and they thought the Pope wasn't a bad guy.

[articulett]

Do you think that platitudes like that apply equally to the children in North Korea?

Or kids told they'll burn in a lake of fire forever if they deny the holy spirit or don't believe that Jesus died for them?

Some choice.

[Beth]

Do you think that platitudes like that apply equally to the children in North Korea?

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about how children in North Korea are indoctrinated to know what you are referring to here.

[Slimething]

Thank you.

You're welcome! I'm off your Ignore List? Pity. I was very happy there.

I think it worth pointing out that the definition of that word varies tremendously and it is particularly prone to change in discussions of this nature.

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.

I was using the word in the way that so many people here do - i.e. parents who raise up their children to know and understand their religious beliefs and participate in some religious activities that are appropriate for their ages. People in this forum have defined such an upbringing as 'indoctrination'.

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.

However, when you claim that people cannot escape their indoctrination, I think you are using the word to refer to a harsher, more stringent situation.

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."

The evidence does not support that contention.

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.

You might want to check out "Amazing Conversions: Why Some Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion" by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger.

You might want to check out "The Oxford Englush Dictionary". It lists the precise meaning of words. It's in alphabetical order.

[qayak]

Making it illegal to take children to a church isn't restricting religious freedom?

Not when the children are being taken in there to have their religious freedom violated through indoctrination.

[Slimething]

In casual conversation, it's all very well to say that indoctrination is bad, although you have to make sure that everyone knows that by "indoctrination", you are referring to brainwashing.

Brainwashing is an extreme term that is not accepted by most psychologists. OTOH, we all know what indoctrination is. Click here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination)if you don't.

The word could just mean education.

It could. It could also mean a toaster or, perhaps, a fetching fedora. But it doesn't.


(At least, that's what the dictionaries say. Here's the "American Heritage" dictionary's entry, quoted from dictionary.com.

1.To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.
2.To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view: a generation of children who had been indoctrinated against the values of their parents. )


I did a search on the definition of the word and the vast minority of dictionaries gave the neutral definition you posted above. How long did you have to search for it?

However, if we start talking about legislation instead of casual conversation...

Why would you even bring it up? My post had nothing to do with that. If you don't like qayak's approach/attituted, discuss it with him.

But that's just me, I guess. If he had called for something truly odious, like giving government money to a church run soup kitchen, that would have brought forth howls of outrage.

You can't be serious. You know that government money is already being funneld to private faith-based charities, don't you? At least, in the US it is. Tell me you're kidding!

Thank goodness there are people in the world who are thinking of the children and their welfare.

I believe we all are. Get off that high horse.

[articulett]

What slimething said (made me laugh)... and gayak.

You can't just say indoctrination is fine and dandy when you really mean your brand of indoctrination-- you must be evenhanded about it. Why would it be okay to indoctrinate a child with threats of hell and not hatred of Americans or Jews? Why would it be okay to indoctrinate kids to believe that the creator of the universe killed his kid for them and not that the creator of the universe wants them to give up their life for him? Is it okay for a parent to tell a kid they'll go to hell if they get a blood transfusion? How about it if a parent tells their kid that the child's suffering is due to original sin or that hurricanes are due to abortionists? When you endorse one brand of indoctrination, you lose the right to comment on all the others--because every one thinks their faith is the good one--the true one-- the one the kiddies must have to be saved. Mistating peoples' positions, exaggerating, creating strawmen, or sugarcoating the kind of "indoctrination" you are talking about, doesn't change the basic premise. Is it generally good or harmful to kids to allow--even encourage their parents to label and indoctrinate their children with whatever faith meme they've been infected with? I would much prefer to inoculate children against faith in general by teaching them that faith and feelings are a bad way to know anything useful or true.

Here is a notion I'd approve of for general guidelines on raising critically thinking children.

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html

[qayak]

I think it is funny that people call what others do to their children indoctrination but like to think what they do to their own children is education.

The difference being that in order to educate someone you must be teaching them the truth. Indoctrination is teaching them anything but the truth. If it were true, it would be education.

[kellyb]

Would it be too much to ask that a few more people chime in and defend the Constitution here as well, and notify him that even though they share his ideological goal of ending the reign of religion over the minds of men, they disagree with his proposed means?

.

Well, it always irks me when people use "the law" as thought it's some divinely inspired rule of absolute morality. So I don't really care about defending the Constitution in and of itself.

But I will say that I find the idea of arresting or fining people for taking their kids to church/synagogue amazingly creepy and I'm certain if you were to start a poll at various atheist websites, you'd find that it's an extreme minority position.
Because it's a "fringe" opinion, I'm not getting my panties in a wad over it, but if there were some actual political movement to make it happen, I'd absolutely actively oppose it. As I think most atheists would.
I don't think it'll ever happen anyway, though. Maybe in 100 years or something, but I'll be dead by then. And hopefully religion will begin dieing a natural death before then, anyway.

[qayak]

http://www.asca.org.au/childabuse/ca_definitions.html

Psychological Harm (Emotional Abuse): Emotional abuse is defined as any ‘act by a person having the care of a child which results in the child suffering any kind of significant emotional deprivation or trauma.’ Behaviours that cause psychological harm include acts by a parent or other person that damage the cognitive and emotional development of a child or young person. The harm resulting from these abusive behaviours can include: emotional deprivation and trauma; the serious impairment of a child’s or young person’s social, emotional, cognitive or intellectual development, disturbance of a child’s or young person’s behaviour.

(Bolding mine)

Teaching children lies is definitely abuse.

[articulett]

I'd at least like to see public forums, television shows, and the like where people can discuss and bring attention to the "faith is good" meme. Everybody knows it's good to read to your kids, right? I think it should be similarly common knowledge that teaching beliefs as "higher truths" can be damaging-- and isn't helpful for all the things it claims to be helpful for (inculcating morality, for example). I think some pretty creepy stuff gets passed on to kids in the name of some nebulous "higher good", and it frustrates me how it is sort of taboo even to mention it--to suggest that it's cruel and untrue and ignorance promoting.

Those who demand the right to indoctrinate or discipline their children without question or government concern... encourage others to do the same-- and who will speak up when other parents are telling their kids that you are the cause of all evil in the world and shouldn't be trusted? Who will speak up when those kids hate your kids because of what your kids do or don't believe? How can this "don't criticize faith" meme ever result in anything good? What wars and cults will these kids grow up to drag your loved ones into?

We encourage bike helmets--and safety belts to protect the brains of kids-- I think encouraging the dismantling of the "faith as a means to truth" meme is equally important. Lots of people claim to have higher truths--many have been proven to be wrong or deluded-- NONE have been proven to actually have any divine truths... nor have such things been shown to exist. Isn't it time to let kids in on this fact?

[Meadmaker]

Well, it always irks me when people use "the law" as thought it's some divinely inspired rule of absolute morality. So I don't really care about defending the Constitution in and of itself.

But I will say that I find the idea of arresting or fining people for taking their kids to church/synagogue amazingly creepy and I'm certain if you were to start a poll at various atheist websites, you'd find that it's an extreme minority position.
Because it's a "fringe" opinion, I'm not getting my panties in a wad over it, but if there were some actual political movement to make it happen, I'd absolutely actively oppose it. As I think most atheists would.
I don't think it'll ever happen anyway, though. Maybe in 100 years or something, but I'll be dead by then. And hopefully religion will begin dieing a natural death before then, anyway.

Thanks for the reply.

This is an internet forum, and I understand that weird things get said on an internet forum. I'm not losing sleep that qayak will take control of the government of Canada and start closing churches. I'm not expecting the Supreme Court of the US to suddenly decide that the right to the free exercise of religion doesn't actually include telling your children that God exists. I am sure that God, the Goddess, all the other gods, and the Buddha are not going to become a civil infraction any time soon, even if you tell your kids and the neighbor's kids about them.

On the other hand, the point I was making was that if someone comes on this forum and says something weird that favors religion, they get about twenty people jumping on them questioning their intelligence, their truthfulness, and their level of education. In fact, it doesn't really have to be something weird at all. If you say something nice about religion, or the religious, be prepared to be set upon by a wolf pack.

On the other hand, if someone comes on this forum and says anything at all, no matter how outrageous, that is anti-religious, they will be met with either respectful silence, or congratulations and encouragement.

qayak's proposal, which appears completely sincere, is nuts. Really. If taken seriously, it's loopy with a capital L. (I respect Loopy)

So, I just ask that some people he respects let him know that. Let him know that just being anti-religion isn't enough to get pats on the back around here. In all seriousness, I think you understand that, as well intentioned as his proposals are, actually implementing them would be the work of a tyrant, and would overthrow the legal principles that are in practice in both the US and Canada.

He deserves to know that's what you are thinking.

And, maybe I have misjudged the people here. Maybe you (collectively, not just KellyB) really think he's got a grand idea, and that I should be clapped in irons for taking my son to a synagogue. (Rest assured I would be clapped in irons, because I can assure you there's no way in Hell that I would pay such a ticket.) If that's what you think, he deserves to know that, too.

[kellyb]

On the other hand, the point I was making was that if someone comes on this forum and says something weird that favors religion, they get about twenty people jumping on them questioning their intelligence, their truthfulness, and their level of education. In fact, it doesn't really have to be something weird at all. If you say something nice about religion, or the religious, be prepared to be set upon by a wolf pack.

On the other hand, if someone comes on this forum and says anything at all, no matter how outrageous, that is anti-religious, they will be met with either respectful silence, or congratulations and encouragement.



That's just human nature. People are slow to criticise what they see as "their side". I'm sort of a-political, and it always amazes me how "liberals" just want to defend even the most corrupt liberal politicians, and the same thing happens with conservatives and conservative politicians.
With religion, we always hear that the moderates enable the extremists, and it's probably true.
The thing is...atheism has basically no "power" at this point. So I personally don't feel a need to 'self-regulate from within'. I guess I sort of worry what people might think who sort of stumble in here and lurk and come across threads like these. They would probably get the impression that atheists are all a bunch of fanatical zealots who want to bring back the lions in amphitheatres, but that's a different issue.

But anyway, I guess the threshold for outrage is always higher for people within a group than it is for those on the "other side". Atheistic skeptics aren't any better about this than any other group. We're just human like that.

[qayak]

So, I just ask that some people he respects let him know that. Let him know that just being anti-religion isn't enough to get pats on the back around here.

First off, if they don't agree with me 100%, I don't respect them! :D

Second, I am not anti-religious. people can believe anything they want. I am anti-push your fairy tales onto children. There is a subtle but important difference.

And, maybe I have misjudged the people here. Maybe you (collectively, not just KellyB) really think he's got a grand idea, and that I should be clapped in irons for taking my son to a synagogue.

That's it, shame them into agreeing with you.:p

Come on Mead. I know there isn't going to be a law like the one I proposed passed anytime soon but if one came about, I would support it. I do not see it as a violation of anyone's rights. Hell, it took legislation to get parents to put seatbelts on their kids in cars and helmets on their heads when riding bikes. Many people thought that was an infringement on parental rights. They were wrong.

Take your son to synagogue,

[kellyb]

And I hate to defend "my side" by finger pointing...but seriously...where was the Christian outrage over this?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html#bush

George Bush on atheism and patriotism
"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

So...we had in very recent history the actual President of the US saying he didn't support "us" having equal citizenship here.
And there's qayak, a guy on a message board with an opinion that most of us think is quite a bit over the top, but benign.
So yeah...we might have a double standard, and that's not something to be proud of.
But seriously...it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

[Slimething]

So...we had in very recent history the actual President of the US saying he didn't support "us" having equal citizenship here.

As I've asked before and received no answer from the Defenders of Faith: Where do you think G.H. Bush got this stance? Did he come up with it on the spot? Did his Rice Krispies tell him that during breakfast?

My guess is Mom and Dad. Is there a better one around?

[qayak]

The thing is...atheism has basically no "power" at this point. So I personally don't feel a need to 'self-regulate from within'.

Hasn't that always been the way of religions? Don't fix a problem, even though you are fully aware of it, until somone forces you to.

And isn't that the definition of evil totalitarianism. Someone who will not address the evil they do because no one has the power to stop them.

Religions are losing their power. Not so long ago, Mead and his fellow zealots could have had me arrested, tortured and executed. I bet many wish they still could! :D Now, they are relying on atheists to help set me straight. How the mighty have fallen.

I guess I sort of worry what people might think who sort of stumble in here and lurk and come across threads like these. They would probably get the impression that atheists are all a bunch of fanatical zealots who want to bring back the lions in amphitheatres, but that's a different issue.

As long as us little atheists just sit quietly and don't express an opinion we are tolerated, but god forbid we have something to say, or worse yet, something to say about religion! This will not do!

Personally, I couldn't care less if some believer gets upset. And, I am not here to make friends so I really don't care if someone reading this thread gets weak kneed and fearful in the presence of an atheist.

and I most assuredly don't think that Meadmakers dearly held religious believes are any reason for me to not question the morality of anything. I don't think that someone's religious beliefs are an excuse for immoral behaviour.

[Henners]

I'm sorry, but I don't know enough about how children in North Korea are indoctrinated to know what you are referring to here.


Do you know about the thousands of homeless children accused of witchcraft in Kinshasa?

[bokonon]

I find the idea of arresting or fining people for taking their kids to church/synagogue amazingly creepy and I'm certain if you were to start a poll at various atheist websites, you'd find that it's an extreme minority position.
I agree with you. It's a fascist position. I hope it's a minority position.

Because it's a "fringe" opinion, I'm not getting my panties in a wad over it, but if there were some actual political movement to make it happen, I'd absolutely actively oppose it. As I think most atheists would.
I know I would. I've been an atheist practically all my life. I was an atheist while I was an acolyte, lighting candles in Sunday services.

Parents have the right to pass on their values to their children, even values you consider wrong. There is no law which will punish a parent for teaching his children to hate people of another religion, or people of another race. While I oppose such teachings, and concede that they are damaging to society, I also oppose making them illegal. The way to counteract them is with education, not legislation.

[Meadmaker]

And I hate to defend "my side" by finger pointing...but seriously...where was the Christian outrage over this?


As I recall the incident, there was plenty of Christian outrage over it. OK. Maybe not outrage. However, there was an awful lot of embarrassed mumbling and comments that perhaps the Vice President had not carefully considered his remarks.

Also, that was a long time ago. There are people who were not born when that incident took place who will celebrate his son's departure from office by raising a glass at their favorite watering hole.

[Meadmaker]

Re: the GHW Bush quote.

Although made a generation ago, I had recalled the incident, or thought I had. I wanted to see if I could find a record of Christian comments about the quote. Since it was made pre-web, I wasn't optimistic, but I figured it was worth a google.

It turns out that what I actually recall was some press coverage of American Atheists Inc. who brought up the issue some time after GHWB became President. It must have been that, because prior to that, there is no record that the quote was actually made. It was allegedly made during a press conference, but there is no audio, video, or written transcript of the exchange, and no reporter other than Sherman (the source of the quote) has any memory of it.

More info:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:George_H._W._Bush


ETA:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/04/27/coming-out-of-the-atheist-closet/

[Meadmaker]

As I've asked before and received no answer from the Defenders of Faith: Where do you think G.H. Bush got this stance? Did he come up with it on the spot? Did his Rice Krispies tell him that during breakfast?

My guess is Mom and Dad. Is there a better one around?

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?

[Meadmaker]

, Mead and his fellow zealots .. I've typed too much already today, but just a quick note here. I'm a member of a synagogue, but I don't believe in God. I'm guessing that about 1/3 of the congregation there has no more faith than I do.

A lot of people call me a "religious apologist", and I've stopped objecting to the term because, well, the shoe fits.

[qayak]

I've typed too much already today, but just a quick note here. I'm a member of a synagogue, but I don't believe in God. I'm guessing that about 1/3 of the congregation there has no more faith than I do.

A lot of people call me a "religious apologist", and I've stopped objecting to the term because, well, the shoe fits.

I didn't mean "religious" zealot! :D:D:D

[Meadmaker]

I didn't mean "religious" zealot! :D:D:D
Fair enough.:)

[articulett]

Who is talking about arresting parents or putting them in leg irons? Don't you think the Dawkins piece is a good piece for all parents to read? http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html --and worth discussing or even posting in schools? What is so good about indoctrination that you'd be willing to suffer and allow other kids to suffer so that you can keep people from questioning your childrearing practices. Heck, I had strangers voicing their opinions that I was nursing my kid too long.

It is weird how people step around the topic to make it into this issue where people are under arrest for taking their kids to church. Is anyone suggesting that? Let us not forget what religions do when unchecked: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=0d8a9b8d-1862-4cea-8757-d28fabaea96a&p=2... Do you want government to stay out of peoples' religious practices if it means more young girls married off to old men and raped? Why should the government not be at least as concerned about the brain damage religions can cause as they are about head injuries by bikes? How much are you willing to protect the practices of ALL religions so that you can protect yours-- what if the Jehovah Witness kid down the street didn't get a blood transfusion because it's taboo to discuss that "not anything goes" in the name of religion. What if the Muslim kids in America are raised to see non-Muslims as enemies they must convert or kill because "faith is good" and "should not be questioned"? Isn't it sick that our troups were going to have that horrible "left behind" video game sent to them in a care charitible care package--that's a videogame where the goal is to convert non-Christians or kill them! That's disturbing... and not talking about it or bringing our laws to bear on the topic allows the ugliness to fester.

Don't children have a freedom of religion as well? Is it freedom if they are told they will suffer forever unless they believe a certain unbelievable story? If not "scrutinizing faith" means that kids are routinely told the earth was 6000 years old, then that is wrong and immoral, isn't it? Those who protect religion at all costs imagine that religion does something great, but they never tell us what it is and they imagine people being put in leg irons for taking their kids to church which is soooooo unlikely (a strawman); whereas, the abuses above ARE occurring... they're prevalent and growing and festering behind this "mustn't question faith" hysteria--Fundies--Jesus Camp indoctrination... kids dead because prayers or exorcisms are supposed to fix physical and mental illnesses. Kids made stupid and afraid to think because of this crap dumped in this head and society silently pretending that it's all good. If their parents are too stupid and indoctrinated to support their thinking-- isn't it good that there are adults out there willing to listen and help them out? Is this abuse all fine with you so long as you can shove your "true woo" in your kids head"? Why are you afraid of the challenge if the faith you are indoctrinating isn't harmful or is good and beneficial. Doesn't that speak for itself? Where do you draw the line with what religions allow and how? Do you think nothing should be done with religious abuses, ever? Would you have told Andrea Yates to have another kid despite her post partum psychosis because god doesn't give you more than you can handle? Is it okay to scare kids with threats of hell? Is it really okay to tell them they are saved and better because of a story they believe??

These institutions get huge tax breaks which means that tax payers pay for them. Should there not be some guidelines? The Mormon and Catholic churches (and others I'm sure) own profitable businesses... so does Sylvia Browne-- is there no oversight? Can't we at least have a public mottos, proclaimations and discussions about the value of faith, feeling, beliefs, and religion versus facts, critical thinking, the good of the whole, and truth?

Demonizing those who dare to say that many religious practices are, in essence, taking away the freedom of religion from kids, is avoiding the topic. Do you think we shouldn't talk badly or discuss or bring to attention to racist parenting practices or those which promote bigotry or sloppy thinking or makes kids vulnerable to cults and authoritarian figures? Do you think bike helmet and car seat laws are unfair to parents? Do you think anyone is advocating jailing or putting leg irons on such parents-- or is public education the goal? The bluster of the apologists misses the entire point of the discussion-- as it always does.

If nothing else, mockery, satire, and humor are always an avenue for raising consciousness.

A society has a vested interest in it's children. The society supports the children via tax dollars in education and food and medical care when the parents cannot. We put the child in foster care when the parents are deemed abusive and aim to educate them so they can be better parents.

We need to be able to talk about the harms of faith and the whole meme that "faith is good" and "secularism is bad" without the smoke and mirrors. Neither Dawkins nor anyone else is advocating locking people in jail. It's raising public awareness and responsibility to children that we are advocating. That's what bike helmet laws do--how many people are really fined, and how harmful is it? I got fined when my dogs rand loose. Why does the mere mention of a fine cause such a strong reaction some people? What are people really afraid of? Why can't faith be scrutinized like racism, politics, or any other ideal, motto, other parenting practices, or groupthink? If nothing untoward is going on, what have religions got to fear? It is only those who teach lies as truth and hellfire and bigotry that will be questioned-- have their tax exempt status revoked--have their members educated on better childrearing practices--have their wrist slapped in an effort to force them to think.

But none of this can happen so long as the moderates rush to protect their own beliefs and thus make all religious practices off limits scrutiny-- remember, every religion thinks they are moderate, right, true, and more moral than the rest. But what you allow for one-- you must allow for all... even the ones you find abhorrent and harmful. If Christian parents can't be scrutinized then neither can Satanist parents. When it comes to belief in invisible entities, we have to make laws that apply equally to all who believe and don't believe in those entities.

[Ichneumonwasp]

http://www.asca.org.au/childabuse/ca_definitions.html



(Bolding mine)

Teaching children lies is definitely abuse.

Teaching the Bohr model of the atom is child abuse?

Have you read "Naked Lunch", watched the Matrix movies, read "Slaughterhouse Five"? Why does Tralfamador exist?

[articulett]

Teaching the Bohr model of the atom is child abuse?

Have you read "Naked Lunch", watched the Matrix movies, read "Slaughterhouse Five"? Why does Tralfamador exist?

Teaching things as models and stories and beliefs is a lot different than teaching things as "higher truths" that must be believed lest you suffer forever... and that those who don't believe such things will do so.

Religious beliefs are too often taught as "higher truths" that MUST be believed and that belief is salvation worthy--I would imagine most people can tell the difference.

[Kopji]

The 'origami' version of the site is funnier.

http://www.geocities.jp/happyorigamiministry/

[Ichneumonwasp]

Teaching things as models and stories and beliefs is a lot different than teaching things as "higher truths" that must be believed lest you suffer forever... and that those who don't believe such things will do so.

Religious beliefs are too often taught as "higher truths" that MUST be believed and that belief is salvation worthy--I would imagine most people can tell the difference.

The reference to those books was for an entirely different purpose, but to discuss your idea........

if I decide to live the 'higher truth' encoded in "Huckleberry Finn" and I teach my children to live that 'higher truth' as well, have I committed child abuse?

That people use carrot and stick stories to motivate particular behaviors is child abuse?

Should I sue Wes Craven and the makers of the "Friday the 13th" series because they encode moral messages in their films -- have teenage sex and you die?

Where's the line here? Is it only abuse if they are biblical literalists? What if you teach your children that we don't know the nature of reality but Christian virtues supply a great way to live? Is that child abuse?

We tell lies all the time. We lie to children frequently. We lie to each other and we lie to ourselves. Every time I use the word "self" I am telling a convenient fiction. I know it is a lie but I still do it. Am I an adult abuser as well as a child abuser?

I'm sorry, but the entire line of argument that telling lies to children is child abuse is wrong-headed. It is silly. It doesn't deserve the respect that any of you seem to give it.

What is wrong with calling things what they are instead of trying to create these new over-blown categories that do no one any good?

[Henners]

What is wrong with calling things what they are instead of trying to create these new over-blown categories that do no one any good?

A child lies awake at night, afraid that she will die in her sleep and go to hell because she told her mother a lie that day.

Is that child being cared for, or abused?

If the child is being cared for, how many nights of sleep-deprivation does it take qualify as abuse?

[Ichneumonwasp]

A child lies awake at night, afraid that she will die in her sleep and go to hell because she told her mother a lie that day.

Is that child being cared for, or abused?

If the child is being cared for, how many nights of sleep-deprivation does it take qualify as abuse?

How does the false dichotomy of 'cared for'/'abused' enter into the picture?

Stories of heaven/hell are carrot and stick stories like almost all carrot and stick stories we tell children. Children in past were told that wolves would eat them if they entered the woods at night. Was that child abuse? Children may watch Freddy Kruger movies and lie awake at night fearing that something someone in their past did might impact their life. Is that abuse? We used to tell kids that if they sucked their thumbs a man with scissors would come and cut them off to keep their thumbs out of their mouths. If they lied awake at night considering the possibilities is that child abuse?

This whole idea is an abuse of the idea of child abuse. I would think that anyone who suffered actual abuse at the hands of all the sick bastards in this world would be disgusted by it.

[bokonon]

Who is talking about arresting parents or putting them in leg irons?
Qayak is talking about fines.

Don't you think the Dawkins piece is a good piece for all parents to read? http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html --and worth discussing or even posting in schools?
Yes, it's a good read. Assigning it in school, or discussing it in school, IMO, would be a violation of the first amendment. It's fine to discuss "how do we know what we know" and make the connection to evidence. It's fine to discuss what constitutes good evidence, and how to identify it. It's fine to learn about logical fallacies.

Making a connection to religion in the classroom is not okay. I'm sorry, but that's one of the things I give up in exchange for not having the more numerous Christian teachers using class time to tell my kids that Jesus died for their sins.

It is weird how people step around the topic to make it into this issue where people are under arrest for taking their kids to church. Is anyone suggesting that?
Qayak is suggesting fines.

Do you want government to stay out of peoples' religious practices if it means more young girls married off to old men and raped?No, this is a strawman. Forcing someone into marriage is wrong at any age. Sex with children is a crime.

Isn't it sick that our troups were going to have that horrible "left behind" video game sent to them in a care charible care package--that's a videogame where the goal is to convert non-Christians or kill them! That's disturbing... and not talking about it or bringing our laws to bear on the topic allows the ugliness to fester.
Another straw man. Talking about it is likely what got the idea squelched.

If not "scrutinizing faith" means that kids are routinely told the earth was 6000 years old, then that is wrong and immoral, isn't it?
Wrong, yes. Immoral is overstating, I think. As long as this lie isn't being taught in public schools, I think it's between the parents and their children.

Where do you draw the line with what religions allow and how?
At the point children are physically harmed.

These institutions get huge tax breaks which means that tax payers pay for them.
No, it doesn't.

Can't we at least have a public mottos, proclaimations and discussions about the value of faith, feeling, beliefs, and religion versus facts, critical thinking, the good of the whole, and truth?
Isn't that what we're having here?

Neither Dawkins nor anyone else is advocating locking people in jail.
Qayak is advocating fines.

It's raising public awareness and responsibility to children that we are advocating.
Fine. That's what discussions like this do. Qayak has one viewpoint -- that teaching religion to one's children should be discouraged by the government. I have another viewpoint -- that the government should teach English, science, math skills, history, and critical thinking, and that standards should be in place so that children who are home-schooled get an adequate education in those areas as well. Beyond that, my reading of the first amendment is that the government should keep its hands off.

[Henners]

How does the false dichotomy of 'cared for'/'abused' enter into the picture?

Stories of heaven/hell are carrot and stick stories like almost all carrot and stick stories we tell children. Children in past were told that wolves would eat them if they entered the woods at night. Was that child abuse? Children may watch Freddy Kruger movies and lie awake at night fearing that something someone in their past did might impact their life. Is that abuse? We used to tell kids that if they sucked their thumbs a man with scissors would come and cut them off to keep their thumbs out of their mouths. If they lied awake at night considering the possibilities is that child abuse?

This whole idea is an abuse of the idea of child abuse. I would think that anyone who suffered actual abuse at the hands of all the sick bastards in this world would be disgusted by it.


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?

[Kopji]

I have complex feelings about this.

What we traditionally describe as 'child abuse' is a serious social concern and to include a broad idea like 'religious upbringing' can blur a much needed focus.

I agree that it is not 'religious lies' that are the proper target. Atheists should promote an idea generally called 'transparency' or 'openness'. Karl Popper has written several books on this and refers often to what we need for an 'open society'. Even if children are raised in a harsh religious tradition, I do not see it as 'child abuse' unless it excludes or actively supresses openness and the freedom to experiment, question and seek answers based on observation and evidence.

A question I am probably 'too close' to, to answer very well is if there is a balance where religious upbringing can complement the kind of openness and freedom of thought that Popper describes. This would formulated as some kind of argument for belief, but I don't see it from where I am.

[bokonon]

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?
It depends on the circumstances. If I wake them up in time to have a hot breakfast before they go to school, I'm depriving them of sleep. I consider that to be good and proper parental care.

If I keep them up all night because I'm drunk and shrieking at their mother and tossing the furniture around, I'm depriving them of sleep. I don't consider that to be good and proper parental care.

Someone who occasionally lays awake at night because his conscience is bothering him may or may not reflect good and proper parental care. Again, it depends on the circumstances.