[firebug]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think questioning someone's beliefs and even saying they're bad is the same as denigrating the people who believe them.

And if someone believes something foolish (say a flat earth), then they should be prepared to defend it and deal with the results if they continue to adhere to it without any support (not saying that's the case here, just in general).

Should flat earth proponents be imprisoned for child abuse? What about proponents of homeopathy, chiropractic, psychics, anti-vaxxers, moon hoaxers?

A stronger case (compared to religion) could be made against these adherents, but for some reason never is.

Originally Posted by photon

And really, your comparison does not follow. Criticizing someone for what they THINK is very different than criticizing someone for what they ARE. Posting a thread against, Jews, black people, homosexuals, or whatever of course would be bad, because that's racist (or whatever).

Originally Posted by photon

On the other hand, if we removed every thread that was negative against someone for what they think, then we would have no threads. Sorry, you can't say anything negative about the Flames/Oilers/Canucks, that's racist against people who like the Flames. No political threads, can't criticize liberal/conservative thoughts because that would denigrate liberals or conservatives. No threads on economics either...

Maybe I have missed the threads that are seriously suggesting that Oiler fans should have their rights diminished. They must be hidden next to the threads recounting every time a Canucks fan kills their spouse or kicks a puppy.

Again, it seems that whenever a troll pipes up that all **** fans are idiots they disappear suddenly. The forum typically does a good job of policing posts with those types of fallacies, but similar rants against believers are left unchallenged by many.

My intent is not to stifle discussion of controversial topics, quite the contrary. However it should be the 'duty' of rationally thinking forum members to try and identify irrational thought no matter which side of the belief spectrum it originates from.

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't get the sense that that was the goal of the OP, more discussion around the topic.

Thread title: Religious child abuse, a real case for it....

Originally Posted by photon

I think we could all find a belief system that we would all agree should justify the removal of rights, so that in itself isn't wrong.

I think it would be more difficult than you suggest. It is critical for a 'just' and democratic society to look for every opportunity to extend rights, not to revoke them.

Originally Posted by photon

So the discussion is about if the belief system in question is harmful enough to warrant it. As I said before, I don't think so but I have seen the case be made and there are some compelling points. EDIT: Maybe in 50 years socially it will be as unacceptable to indoctrinate children into a specific religion as it would be to indoctrinate them into a specific political party or economic outlook. Maybe it'll be viewed like sex or anything else that just shouldn't matter to kids until they grow up. I doubt it though.

I don't think he'd petition anyone for anything based on simple beliefs, it's about the harm (if any) being done.

Sorry, I see no claim for any true 'harm' being done to the children in the case in question, beyond being 'indoctrinated' into a belief system that the poster opposes.

Is it best that children be raised in a more open environment? Certainly.

However a poster would lose me when they state that parents rights should be revoked or diminished based on them failing to do what is 'best.'