|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2011 : 09:30:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
In America, we have freedom of religious written into our Constitution, and most of us claim to think that is a good thing. |
It's a good thing because it prevents theocracies, not because religion is inherently a good thing or because religious diversity is inherently a good thing. The Bill of Rights is written as limitations on government power, not encouragements of individual activities.| If it is permissible for an adult to openly practice a particular religion, then why should it not be permissible for that same adult to raise their children to share those beliefs and values? |
Children cannot consent to their parent's encouraging/indoctrinating them to engage in stupid behaviors (including holding to beliefs and values). Change the subject matter from religion to porn and see how well the arguments work. I will celebrate any adult's informed, uncoerced decision to become a porn star. I will seek to stop any adult who turns their child into a porn star. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 10:08:21 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | It's a good thing because it prevents theocracies, not because religion is inherently a good thing or because religious diversity is inherently a good thing. |
It's not just a good thing because it prevents theocracies. It is also good because it protects people's freedom to live as they so choose, based on a variety of beliefs and practices, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. In other words, it also prevents an atheist state from banning religious institutions and violating the freedoms of religious communities, families, and individuals.
| The Bill of Rights is written as limitations on government power, not encouragements of individual activities. |
Individual activities, including diversity of religious practices, do not need to be encouraged, they are inevitable. That is why such limitations on government power are necessary.
| Children cannot consent to their parent's encouraging/indoctrinating them to engage in stupid behaviors (including holding to beliefs and values). Change the subject matter from religion to porn and see how well the arguments work. I will celebrate any adult's informed, uncoerced decision to become a porn star. I will seek to stop any adult who turns their child into a porn star. |
Read my post more carefully, I already mentioned sexual abuse along with physical abuse. Changing religion to porn is not an appropriate comparison. One appropriate comparison is changing religion to political affiliation. Is raising a child to unquestioningly accept a political ideology child abuse? And remember, I'm not asking if it is a crappy way to raise kids, I'm asking if it is abuse. In other words, the sort of thing the state should take action against?
Something that often gets lost in discussions over whether a certain practice is child abuse is how much damage is guaranteed by government interference in family affairs. Most parenting approaches are far from ideal, and the argument can be made that many of the common practices of parents are to some small degree harmful to children. But is the degree of that harm more or less than the harm done when the state steps in? The most extreme form of intervention is a child being removed from the home and placed in foster care. The harm caused by such action has been well documented, and there is consensus that this action should only be taken in the most severe cases of child abuse. The idea that we should remove children from religious households just because they are highly religious is disgusting to me. But let's consider a lesser degree of interference - perhaps assigning social workers to children to observe and evaluate. What purpose would that serve? The children would still be raised by the parents, who would no doubt view the social workers with contempt. And what criteria would social workers have for evaluating how "severe" the supposed "abuse" of the children?
Let's face it, we're not talking about child abuse here. We're talking about religious intolerance, plain and simple. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 11:02:45 [Permalink]
|
Parents will:
Teach their children what political party they should align themselves with.
Teach their children what sports teams they should be fans of.
Teach their kids that fastfood is okay or not okay. (The kids will probably want it no matter what.)
Teach their kids to be racist, or not racist. (Hopefully not racist.)
The list is endless, and with sports teams as an example, there is nothing particularly rational about supporting a team based on a geographical location, other than it's easier to see them play. And some parents have moved away from their favorite sports team but still continue to be fans and do try to pass that on to the kids.
None of the above is considered child abuse. (Well, maybe the over indulgence of fast food as a health issue is, but I doubt that will ever become a law enforcement issue.) Parents are going to try to pass along to their kids those things that they believe, some for not particularly rational reasons.
That's just the nature of the beast. Parents know best even when it's total baloney that they are teaching. Unless real permanent damage can be shown resulting from parents pushing kids to believe what they believe, I don't see how bringing up their kids to accept their parents religious beliefs can be seen as child abuse. Heck. Many kids rebel anyway. I'm willing to wager that the strongest anti-theist atheists come from families that were strong on religion. (I don't have any numbers to support that view. But in all the years I have been doing what I do here, it seems that the angriest atheists more often than not have religion in their background and feel betrayed the years lost to observing their parents nonsense.)
Certainly there are abuses. There are those religious indoctrination camps that made me angry while learning about how they do indeed use brainwashing tactics. But most people of faith aren't doing that to their kids. Following a tradition at home and going to church and sunday school is not the same is placing a kid in one of those camps.
How odd it would have been for my parents to have been accused of child abuse, because I was brought up in the Jewish tradition. It's what they knew. It was perfectly natural for them to do that.
So like others here, I don't think bringing up children to believe what their parents believe is child abuse. Not unless we can show somehow that as adults those children have become seriously psychologically dysfunctional as a result of their upbringing. And since most of the population identify as people of faith, I strongly doubt that that case can me made.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 11:02:48 [Permalink]
|
Parents will:
Teach their children what political party they should align themselves with.
Teach their children what sports teams they should be fans of.
Teach their kids that fastfood is okay or not okay. (The kids will probably want it no matter what.)
Teach their kids to be racist, or not racist. (Hopefully not racist.)
The list is endless, and with sports teams as an example, there is nothing particularly rational about supporting a team based on a geographical location, other than it's easier to see them play. And some parents have moved away from their favorite sports team but still continue to be fans and do try to pass that on to the kids. And what's rational about being a fan of a sports team anyway? I'm sure there are psychological explanations, but I doubt fandom itself is considered to be particularly rational.
None of the above is considered child abuse. (Well, maybe the over indulgence of fast food as a health issue is, but I doubt that will ever become a law enforcement issue.) Parents are going to try to pass along to their kids those things that they believe, and often, they will not be particularly rational beliefs supported by particularly rational reasons.
That's just the nature of the beast. Parents know best even when it's total baloney that they are teaching. Unless real permanent damage can be shown resulting from parents pushing kids to believe what they believe, I don't see how bringing up their kids to accept their parents religious beliefs can be seen as child abuse. Heck. Many kids rebel anyway. I'm willing to wager that the strongest anti-theist atheists come from families that were strong on religion. (I don't have any numbers to support that view. But in all the years I have been doing what I do here, it seems that the angriest atheists more often than not have religion in their background and feel betrayed because of the years lost to observing their parents nonsense.)
Certainly there are abuses. There are those religious indoctrination camps that made me angry while learning about how they do indeed use brainwashing tactics. But most people of faith aren't doing that to their kids. Following a tradition at home and going to church and sunday school is not the same is placing a kid in one of those camps.
How odd it would have been for my parents to have been accused of child abuse, because I was brought up in the Jewish tradition. It's what they knew. It was perfectly natural for them to do that.
So like others here, I don't think bringing up children to believe what their parents believe is child abuse. Not unless we can show somehow that as adults those children have become psychologically dysfunctional as a result of their upbringing. And since most of the population identify as people of faith, I strongly doubt that that case can me made.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Judge Bromley circa 1612
New Member
United Kingdom
43 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 11:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Oh dear I seem to have stirred up a real hornet's nest here, so to speak. Would it be alright , for a parent or teacher, to tell children that:
The Earth is flat?
That the Sun , Moon, planets and stars circle the Earth?
The Earth is less than ten thousand years old?
Disease is caused by demonic possessionand and that to cure it the affected person needs to be exorcised?
That going to a doctor to cure a treatable condition is forbidden and that prayer should be used instead?
Maybe it's all relative and there are no ulitmate truths just variaitons on different themes? Could any of the above be classed as child abuse or is it just plain lying to perpetuate a myth?
Best wishes all
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612 ( just about keeping a tenuous grasp on reality)
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 11:27:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
Oh dear I seem to have stirred up a real hornet's nest here, so to speak. Would it be alright , for a parent or teacher, to tell children that:
The Earth is flat?
That the Sun , Moon, planets and stars circle the Earth?
The Earth is less than ten thousand years old?
Disease is caused by demonic possessionand and that to cure it the affected person needs to be exorcised?
That going to a doctor to cure a treatable condition is forbidden and that prayer should be used instead?
|
It would not be child abuse for a parent to do those things. We do fight to keep educators from teaching that the earth is flat. It's against federal law to teach creationism as science in our public schools. But what a parent tells their child is a privacy issue. If we start telling parents that they can't teach the kids what they believe, we will be setting up a theocracy of our own. Call it an anti-theocratic state. Same difference. Promoting a secular state protects our right to not not believe the same as it protects people of faiths right to believe. If we go where you seem to be suggesting we go, we will also be jeopardizing our own rights, based on how non beliefe is defined in an anti-theocratic (same as theocratic) state.
| Maybe it's all relative and there are no ulitmate truths just variaitons on different themes? Could any of the above be classed as child abuse or is it just plain lying to perpetuate a myth? |
Why do you call it lying? Ignorance is not a synonyme for lying. Does it perpetuate a myth or myths? Sure. But give it time. Try to educate. Criminalizing will not work unless you want to create a bunch of marters for their myths... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 11:56:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
Oh dear I seem to have stirred up a real hornet's nest here, so to speak. Would it be alright , for a parent or teacher, to tell children that:
The Earth is flat?
That the Sun , Moon, planets and stars circle the Earth?
The Earth is less than ten thousand years old?
Disease is caused by demonic possessionand and that to cure it the affected person needs to be exorcised?
That going to a doctor to cure a treatable condition is forbidden and that prayer should be used instead?
Maybe it's all relative and there are no ulitmate truths just variaitons on different themes? Could any of the above be classed as child abuse or is it just plain lying to perpetuate a myth?
Best wishes all
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612 ( just about keeping a tenuous grasp on reality)
|
Once again, you fail to adequately define your terms. Even though you seem to prefer poking at "hornet nests" to actually defending your argument, is there any chance you'd be willing to address any of the obvious challenges to your assertions? Here's just one question, of many: Does intent have any bearing when assessing the morality of an action?
For example:
* If I carelessly knock a flower pot off of my balcony and injure a passerby on the sidewalk below, am I guilty of negligence, or assault?
* Suppose I earnestly believe that Jews drink the blood of gentile babies. Is it "abuse" to share this belief with my children? (Conversely, would it be "abuse" for me to withhold this "truth" from them?)
In each scenario, my actions cause real harm to an innocent. Would you propose that every action be judged solely on the basis of its outcome?
Note that moral relativism is not the issue here. I'm not suggesting that simply believing something makes it objectively true, nor that every consequence must necessarily be judged solely within the context of a specific belief system. I do, however, feel you can provide much more value to this discussion if you will attempt to deal with, or even acknowledge, the nuances that have made these questions so difficult since the beginning of human interactions.
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Judge Bromley circa 1612
New Member
United Kingdom
43 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 12:01:07 [Permalink]
|
Are you seriously saying it wouldn't be abuse to let a child die because his parents didn't believe in medical intervention for a curable condition?
I think it would be an act of criminal irresponsibility not to act to save a child's life .
There have been numerous cases where children of christian scientists have died because their parents have refused to allow them to be treated medically. A cursory search found this article showing many such cases: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/suffer.htm
Best wishes everyone
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612 ( losing his tenuous grasp on reality)
Is it all just relative in cases like those mentioned. Should society respect their faith and allow such things to continue?
As for parents teaching their children thats going to continue whatever I may think about it. I'm realistic enough to know there's not a lot I can, or would want to do about it.
I really think some people are missing the point .Should parents be allowed to withold medical intervention because their beliefs preclude it?
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 12:01:48 [Permalink]
|
Judge Bromley wrote: | Oh dear I seem to have stirred up a real hornet's nest here, so to speak. |
It seems clear from your posts that that was your real goal anyway.
Would it be alright , for a parent or teacher, to tell children that:
The Earth is flat?
That the Sun , Moon, planets and stars circle the Earth?
The Earth is less than ten thousand years old? |
Parent, yes. Teacher, depends on whether they are a public school teacher or private. Public school teachers must abide by curriculum standards set by the government.
Disease is caused by demonic possession and and that to cure it the affected person needs to be exorcised?
That going to a doctor to cure a treatable condition is forbidden and that prayer should be used instead? |
Words are one thing and actions are another. Parents who do not get treatment for their sick kids can be and have been prosecuted for neglect. They should be prosecuted for neglect, since in such cases abuse is clear. The same would go for anyone who didn't get their kid proper medical treatment for whatever reason, religious or secular.
| Maybe it's all relative and there are no ulitmate truths just variaitons on different themes? |
Oh give me a break. Obviously there are some things we can be more sure of than others, and it is impossible for any fallible human to know the ultimate, capital "T" Truth about everything. That's hardly relevant here. There is harm caused by any sort of law enforcement, and so if we are going to have and enforce laws, there better be a damn good reason for said laws. It better be damn clear that the harm we are alleviating with the enforcement of the law is worse than the harm we are inflicting by enforcing the law. So regardless of how ridiculous a person or a whole community's beliefs may seem, if they aren't doing any clear and severe harm to their kids by teaching those beliefs, I fail to see how any authority figures are justified in interfering with functioning family units just because we realize their beliefs are silly. People can hold incredibly absurd beliefs and still be valuable members of society. A lot of amazing people in history and today's world have held absurd beliefs. But if they don't hurt anyone, and if they even contribute to society in many wonderful ways, who the fuck cares?
I'm an artist living in a major city; do you have any idea how many people I've met who hold really batshit insane beliefs? I have an acquaintance who believes he channels the "5th dimension", which he explains is some spiritual-like plain of existence with chimera-like being similar to Australian Aborigine Dreamtime ancestors. It's fucking nuts! But he's a really nice guy, a kind and respectful husband, a pretty decent musician, and he pays his taxes. If he had kids, I'm sure he'd attempt to indoctrinate them with his New Age gobbledygook beliefs. He'd probably also teach them to be kind and respectful and appreciate music. So what? Does anyone actually believe such children are better off with government intervention? With fostering? Are we talking about parenting that just makes us cringe, or are we talking about children in peril?
| Could any of the above be classed as child abuse or is it just plain lying to perpetuate a myth? |
It isn't "lying" if the person saying it believes it themselves. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 12:04:24 [Permalink]
|
| Are you seriously saying it wouldn't be abuse to let a child die because his parents didn't believe in medical intervention for a curable condition? |
No. Again it's against the law to do that. Sorry if I lumped that in the way you did. A copy and paste error. But see, this doesn't belong on the same list that you supplied because it really is a matter of life and death.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 12:08:20 [Permalink]
|
Judge wrote: | Are you seriously saying it wouldn't be abuse to let a child die because his parents didn't believe in medical intervention for a curable condition? |
You didn't actually pose that question. You asked if it would be okay for a parent or teacher to tell a kid that medical intervention is unecessary. Words and actions are two different things.
Again, ANY parent, regardless of the motivation (religious or otherwise) would be guilty of neglect if they were to not seek treatment for their child when the child has a treatable illness, and then the child died or was permanently injured as a result. It is a form of physical abuse. I don't think anyone argues that religious people should have special privileges to physically abuse or neglect their children just because their beliefs say it is okay. Certainly no one on this forum. Maybe I'm wrong. Hey, does anyone on this forum thing religious people should get special privileges that let them neglect, physically, or sexually abuse their kids, so long as their beliefs say it is okay?
I think you are being quite disingenuous with this thread. You seem to just want to stir up shit, and you don't seem to care about being consistent or honest in your communications. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 12:13:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
Oh dear I seem to have stirred up a real hornet's nest here, |
Oh, dear, you are sooo amazing. You "argue" like a 12-year-old.
Would it be alright , for a parent or teacher, to tell children that:
The Earth is flat? |
Would it be alright to tell children that the Earth is an oblate spheroid if some religion says so? Would that be child abuse? Why do you only list examples that could be seen as abuse or, simply, factually wrong to support your assertion that all forms of religious indoctrination is abuse? Why can't you even muster an argument? Are you too intellectually weak?
| That the Sun , Moon, planets and stars circle the Earth? |
As far as I know, the Moon does revolve around the Earth. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Judge Bromley circa 1612
New Member
United Kingdom
43 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 17:08:15 [Permalink]
|
Hawks said " As far as I know, the Moon does revolve around the Earth."
Yes but does the Sun , planets and stars also the circle Earth?
Sorry I can't follow your reasoning Hawks , must be that I'm too intellectually weak to muster an argument against your ramblings.
Best wishes to all on this site especially atheists, agnostics and humanists and all religious zealots posing to be such.
|
|
|
|
Judge Bromley circa 1612
New Member
United Kingdom
43 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 17:23:11 [Permalink]
|
Signing off now, at least for the time being . I'll leave one last link to the Richard Dawkins foundation I'm sure he can explain far better than I can :http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118-religion-39-s-real-child-abuse
Best wishes to all on this site especially atheists, agnostics and humanists and all religious zealots posing to be such.
Judge Edward Bromley circa 1612( finally had enough)
|
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 18:18:24 [Permalink]
|
| I guess Judge Bromley couldn't take the heat |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religious indoctrination of children child abuse?
