Fundamentalism and Children

[six7s]

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

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

Baaa!

​

 

[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.

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 with special attention to being civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[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

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.

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.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[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.

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.