Fundamentalism and Children

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

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

How many nights of deprived sleep would constitute child abuse?

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

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

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

I'd really like to know.

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

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

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

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

E.g, what about homeopathy?

How are these belief systems significantly different to religion?

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

If not, what's the difference for you?

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

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

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

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

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What are laws regulating child labor for?

To prevent physical harm to children.

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

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

 

[Slimething]

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

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

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

ETA: Evasion noted.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

I agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Slimething]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Religion is a private affair.

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

It is a story telling enterprise.

So is homeopathy.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither does homeopathy.

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

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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

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

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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



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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

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

 

[articulett]

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

And children are others.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[six7s]

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

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 28,200 for "george bush" atheists sherman chicago

http://jmarkgilbert.com/shame.html

Theist Hall of Shame

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

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

Google Books: Words to the Wise: A Medical-Philosophical Dictionary
By Thomas Stephen Szasz


Rob Sherman Advocacy
April 1, 2006
Documents at Bush Presidential Library Prove
VP Bush Questioned Citizenship and Patriotism of Atheists

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

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

<snip/>

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

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

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

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

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

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

So is homeopathy.

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

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

As far as their ideas are concerned, yes.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[pgwenthold]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

And children are others.

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

 

[mijopaalmc]

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

Is the state a better surrogate?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

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

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

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

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

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

Yep. I agree completely.

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

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

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

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

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

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

 

[Meadmaker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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