Fundamentalism and Children

[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 "F'ing" 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.

 

[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?

 

[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 "F'ing 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 "F'ing 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 "F'ing" 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 F'ing 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?

Who's being slow on the uptake?

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.