Religious child abuse, a real case for it....?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Growing up I've also seen a number of people 'making up for lost time' at age 18 and ended up far worse than those who were 'badasses' back in junior high.

Exactly. Isn't it odd that many teenage mothers come from (often excessively) devout families?

All too often, excessive repression leads to an excessive expression. Rather than learning how to be streetsmart, discerning and pragmatic, you unleash socially handicapped people into a very harsh and unforgiving world. I'm not talking evil violent criminals here either. We're talking smooth talking scammers (legal or otherwise), discerning job interviewers, and other social interactions, where lacking the social aptitude from public educaion comes back to haunt.

[photon]

Originally Posted by firebug

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.

As I've already said a few times now, no, the "solution" would be worse than the problem.

And I'm not sure I'd agree that a stronger case could be made on these.. maybe a stronger case in that you can demonstrate those are baseless beliefs, but there's a case that could be made that religion is more harmful than those.

Originally Posted by firebug

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.

Good point, but as I said before there are some things that we would all agree that if parents were to teach it to their children they would be guilty of child abuse and should have their rights limited.

Originally Posted by firebug

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.

Because a religion thread usually ends up in a huge discussion, I think those rants go unchallenged because the people who would oppose it simply don't want to go through the time and effort. Not everyone wants to climb a big hill all the time. I don't usually engage in political threads for that reason.

Originally Posted by firebug

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.

I can definitely agree with that, though how many times do you read a post by a Flames fan that you just shake your head at and move on, but if it was an Oilers fan you jump in and engage? Human nature makes it difficult, but that's not an excuse, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by firebug

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

Point taken, I honestly haven't read the first few pages of the thread in great detail, I skimmed it so that's why I said I didn't get the "sense". Did the OP actually advocate taking children away or limiting parents' rights?

Originally Posted by firebug

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.

I think raising a child to hate and advocate hate or violence against others. Raising them to abuse themselves or others. Raising them to steal maybe. And by limit rights I don't necessarily mean take the children away completely.

Originally Posted by firebug

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.

Well the indoctrination itself could be harm in my opinion, but I don't think I've said much about the case in question, I've been speaking more generally since the discussion moved up to a level above the case.

Originally Posted by firebug

However you lose me when anyone states that parents rights should be revoked or diminished based on them failing to do what is 'best.'

I don't think I advocated that. I come at it from the other side, parents that are the "worst" should lose their rights, the question is how far back from worst do we go, by what criteria, and how do we measure it.

Even if we could somehow determine what "best" was and perfectly evaluate every parent somehow, the cure would still be worse.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think you way overestimate how bad being in a public/public catholic school is. Not to say there are not bad negative influences out there, but its not like whether or not your child ends up succoming to said influences is completely out of a parents control. Having well adjusted older siblings and parents to look up to doesn't only exist in a home-schooled environment (I suppose under your definition I wasn't well adjusted enough to serve as a good role model for my younger brother because I wasn't forced into a group-think education scheme by my parents, who obviously due to their Christian roots must be infalable!). Sometimes actually being able to see the compare/contrast between peers who are not the best role models and older siblings and parents who are could reinforce to a child as to actually why their family members make good role models. Growing up I've also seen a number of people 'making up for lost time' at age 18 and ended up far worse than those who were 'badasses' back in junior high.

I'm not overstating anything. A thirteen year old girl almost certainly will know a bully and a drug dealer if she is in public school. Her physical development will probably determine the kind of attention she gets from older boys. Sure she could make all the right choices, never get targeted by a bully, and find a good peer group. The homeschooled child won't have those temtations and trials until she is more mature. A teenagers brain is still developing you know. At 13 abstract and critical thinking is just in its infancy for most. Yes some kids make bad choices just as soon as they've got the opportunity to but, an 18 year old has a lot better chance of coping with the results of those choices than the same kid at 13. Some girls who go off to college and find themselves out of parental control for the first time become quit loose for a time. I'm sure you don't think her parents would have been better off to let run around all night in a miniskirt when she was 13 years old.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I'm not overstating anything. A thirteen year old girl almost certainly will know a bully and a drug dealer if she is in public school. Her physical development will probably determine the kind of attention she gets from older boys. Sure she could make all the right choices, never get targeted by a bully, and find a good peer group. The homeschooled child won't have those temtations and trials until she is more mature. A teenagers brain is still developing you know. At 13 abstract and critical thinking is just in its infancy for most. Yes some kids make bad choices just as soon as they've got the opportunity to but, an 18 year old has a lot better chance of coping with the results of those choices than the same kid at 13. Some girls who go off to college and find themselves out of parental control for the first time become quit loose for a time. I'm sure you don't think her parents would have been better off to let run around all night in a miniskirt when she was 13 years old.

Not suggesting they should let their teenage run rampant all hours of the night. Just suggesting they not shield her from attending school with a cross-section of society between the ages of 5-18. What's wrong with exposing one's child to the reality of the world around them while still being a proper parent and being involved enough in their out of school lives to ensure that they aren't getting laid by those predatory teenage boys at midnight on a school night while wearing her mini-skirt while taking a bong-hit. Hypersensitive much!

[firebug]

Originally Posted by photon

As I've already said a few times now, no, the "solution" would be worse than the problem.

And I'm not sure I'd agree that a stronger case could be made on these.. maybe a stronger case in that you can demonstrate those are baseless beliefs, but there's a case that could be made that religion is more harmful than those.

I tend to agree with you except the suggestion of the 'harm' of religion. I agree that religion is just as 'wrong' as those, but the concept of what constitutes harm would be beyond the scope of this particular thread.

Originally Posted by photon

Because a religion thread usually ends up in a huge discussion, I think those rants go unchallenged because the people who would oppose it simply don't want to go through the time and effort. Not everyone wants to climb a big hill all the time. I don't usually engage in political threads for that reason.

Agreed, and I of the reasons I have remained relatively quiet until now.

Originally Posted by photon

I can definitely agree with that, though how many times do you read a post by a Flames fan that you just shake your head at and move on, but if it was an Oilers fan you jump in and engage? Human nature makes it difficult, but that's not an excuse, I agree with you.

I think that is one of the reasons while I chimed in to this thread (certainly not to call you out personally). Maybe a bit of a call to arms (for myself as much as anyone). I guess I detest zealotry (those who would do 'wrong' things to convince others they are 'right') no matter which side of the belief spectrum they reside on.

Originally Posted by photon

I think raising a child to hate and advocate hate or violence against others. Raising them to abuse themselves or others. Raising them to steal maybe. And by limit rights I don't necessarily mean take the children away completely.

I agree with the path you are taking here. Big questions that our society may need to answer at some point.

Originally Posted by photon

Well the indoctrination itself could be harm in my opinion, but I don't think I've said much about the case in question, I've been speaking more generally since the discussion moved up to a level above the case.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think I advocated that. I come at it from the other side, parents that are the "worst" should lose their rights, the question is how far back from worst do we go, by what criteria, and how do we measure it.

Even if we could somehow determine what "best" was and perfectly evaluate every parent somehow, the cure would still be worse.

Agreed, and that is an important conclusion for rationally thinking individuals to communicate.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Yes, the mental image of a young girl going out and telling everyone she can find that they're damned burn forever for something they didn't do, that she's convinced to her core that she is right beyond question and everyone else is wrong beyond anything but the redemption she brings, is very heartwarming.

How did the conversation go from the scope of this girl's social interaction to the temperature of your heart? O that's right! We were also discussing the quality of the points you folks bring to the table. So I guess you sort of stayed on topic.

Originally Posted by photon

, I don't think that was quite dramatic enough.

Please point out where I've not taken anything I've earned, or I've not owned up to any sort of boorish behaviour on my part. Please show me where I said the quality of arguments should be excluded subject matter (in fact I said the opposite, I also said that the questioning should have substance). So lots of accusations, not a lot of merit though.

You deny that the atheists on this site "deliberately denigrate people of belief via the use of specious arguments" as Firebug put it. Yet that is the purpose of this thread and countless others. You argue that nothing should be off topic when the problem isn't the topic but, rather the relentless pursuit of it at every turn. That pursuit has taken this site to threads like this one where a very good family is being called "child abusers" because of some folks contempt for Christianity. You see nothing wrong here.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Thor

.... and that if they don't conform to the bible they go to hell, so at a very young age these kids are in fear of hellfire, which is real to them.

But this is true. For them to not tell their children this, would be MORE irresponsible. They are trying to keep their children away from people like you. That is not wrong, nor is it irresponsible.

I can see why this would trouble you, but wishing it to be irresponsible does not make it so.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Not suggesting they should let their teenage run rampant all hours of the night. Just suggesting they not shield her from attending school with a cross-section of society between the ages of 5-18. What's wrong with exposing one's child to the reality of the world around them while still being a proper parent and being involved enough in their out of school lives to ensure that they aren't getting laid by those predatory teenage boys at midnight on a school night while wearing her mini-skirt while taking a bong-hit. Hypersensitive much!

There is nothing wrong with exposing one's child to the realities of the world around them when they're ready for them. There is obviously risk involved but, I suppose that comes with most things in life. I just don't believe that those who wait to expose their children to the ills of our society are hurting them. In fact in cases like this family on the documentary I think it is a better choice. I would love to devote the time and energy to my boys that these parents do. I bet if you did a survey of most parents you would find most wishing they had more one on one time with their kids.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How did the conversation go from the scope of this girl's social interaction to the temperature of your heart?

Not familiar with sarcasm? Ok, let me rephrase that, I didn't mean heartwarming, I meant it's somewhat frightening and abusive to the child.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

O that's right! We were also discussing the quality of the points you folks bring to the table. So I guess you sort of stayed on topic.

??

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You deny that the atheists on this site "deliberately denigrate people of belief via the use of specious arguments" as Firebug put it.

I didn't confirm or deny it, go back and read what I said. Come back when you can talk about what I actually say, not what you think I said.

And I don't speak for "the atheists", that you instantly group it into "them vs. us" is telling...

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yet that is the purpose of this thread and countless others.

You're omniscient then? Since you know the purpose of every thread? People want to discuss things that are relevant to their lives, and religion is a major part of society, why is it shocking people want to discuss it?

And why is it shocking that some people think it's negative and express their opinions of it?

You would accept the idea of "hate sin, love the sinner" right? I would wager that most non-religious here would advocate "hate religion, love the religious". A negative comment about what you believe isn't a negative comment about you.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You argue that nothing should be off topic when the problem isn't the topic but, rather the relentless pursuit of it at every turn.

Hardly, the number of religious oriented threads here is a shadow of what it once was.. there's been a recent uptick but still hardly what it was.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

That pursuit has taken this site to threads like this one where a very good family is being called "child abusers" because of some folks contempt for Christianity. You see nothing wrong here.

And yet you group and characterize a group of good people in this thread.

I can't speak to Thor's motivation, but personally if I criticize a religion it usually isn't out of contempt, it's out of reason and a desire to resolve internal conflicts that I see that prevent me from accepting it any further.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is nothing wrong with exposing one's child to the realities of the world around them when they're ready for them. There is obviously risk involved but, I suppose that comes with most things in life. I just don't believe that those who wait to expose their children to the ills of our society are hurting them. In fact in cases like this family on the documentary I think it is a better choice. I would love to devote the time and energy to my boys that these parents do. I bet if you did a survey of most parents you would find most wishing they had more one on one time with their kids.

Maybe a compelling arguement would be for a child to actually experience a common adolensence first hand so that they can make proper parental decisions when they have kids of their own instead of just blanking it out with ignorance. After a few generations of home schooled people in one family, and one could imagine that there could be some pretty out of touch parents out there with no practical experience of what risks and the likely probabilities associated with those risk are even present. It's called risk management not risk avoidance. The positives of meeting new and diverse people and making life-long friends and connections at multiple intervals during adolecence is far too great a opportunity to pass up out of fears that heaven forbid Daddy's little girl gets hit on in junior high (Oh how will her precious little undevelped brain handle it!). It is actually a serious disservice to any child to be denied those opportunities.

Maybe it's not the serious things that home-school parents are worried about avoiding (because afterall it's not their children they are worried about, it's all the other bad drug dealing, teenage breast feeling children they have to worry about), but rather the moral fringe stuff that overtime chips away and chips away from their upbringing that eventually causes them to question the previously unquestionable. Of course we can't have kids who are supposed to have undeveloped brains running around questioning authority and morality before they are old enough to 'properly deal with the real world' can we?

[troutman]

This might add to the discussion:

http://www.perefound.org/home2.html

The Peregrine Foundation is a charitable, educational and research public foundation created in 1992 to assist families and individuals living in or exiting from experimental social groups. Its newsletters and books inform the public-at-large about the structure and ideologies of various religious sects, communes and intentional communities.

I'd be interested to read research about people integrating into society from alternative social groups.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Maybe a compelling arguement would be for a child to actually experience a common adolensence first hand so that they can make proper parental decisions when they have kids of their own instead of just blanking it out with ignorance. After a few generations of home schooled people in one family, and one could imagine that there could be some pretty out of touch parents out there with no practical experience of what risks and the likely probabilities associated with those risk are even present. It's called risk management not risk avoidance. The positives of meeting new and diverse people and making life-long friends and connections at multiple intervals during adolecence is far too great a opportunity to pass up out of fears that heaven forbid Daddy's little girl gets hit on in junior high (Oh how will her precious little undevelped brain handle it!). It is actually a serious disservice to any child to be denied those opportunities.

Maybe it's not the serious things that home-school parents are worried about avoiding (because afterall it's not their children they are worried about, it's all the other bad drug dealing, teenage breast feeling children they have to worry about), but rather the moral fringe stuff that overtime chips away and chips away from their upbringing that eventually causes them to question the previously unquestionable. Of course we can't have kids who are supposed to have undeveloped brains running around questioning authority and morality before they are old enough to 'properly deal with the real world' can we?

When you say a "common adolensence" you seem to think "common" is "best"; I don't and neither do these parents. Why would these parents want them to experience something undesirable simply so they could use that experience to make their own parenting decisions. By your reasoning "common" parents should homeschool their children for at least three years in order to let their children make an informed decision with their own children on schooling. If these homeschooled Parents are out of touch about the perils of public school wouldn't that incline them more to send their kids? No. I'm pretty sure that between the media availiable to homeschooling parents and their own parents wise advise they will be able to make informed decisions themselves.

How is it you see sending your child to public school with the limited involvement you will have in that situation is better risk management than homeschooling your children. Most parents who homeschool do it to better manage the risks associated with growing up.

You seem to be mocking my assertion that a 13 year olds brain is not fully developed. I suggest you talk to a professional teacher about where a thirteen year olds brain is at. It actually important to know because it governs which is the best teaching methods for that age group. Brain development also determines when a child can learn to read or do algebra. Some kids brains grow faster than others much like their bodies so if your child is having problems getting math in grade 4 it doesn't mean he's slow or lazy. It might mean that a part of his brain hasn't developed that capacity. In 6 months or a year he/she could have a growth spert and be ahead of the class.

For some reason there seems to be the impression that a child raised in this environment lacks the ability to question his or her faith or upbringing. I highly doubt that. These people are not so isolated as not to know people outside their religious community. Also, the fact they share their beliefs indicates they are open to dialogue. This girl's parents have had the gall to question the norms of their society and adjust their lifes in light of what they found. Why wouldn't they teach their daughter that same life skill?

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by photon

I can't speak to Thor's motivation, but personally if I criticize a religion it usually isn't out of contempt, it's out of reason and a desire to resolve internal conflicts that I see that prevent me from accepting it any further.

If you have internal conflicts with religion Photon perhaps you should go to church and question a minister and not fellow hockey forumers on this board.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

If you have internal conflicts with religion Photon perhaps you should go to church and question a minister and not fellow hockey forumers on this board.

Who says I haven't?

[Finny61]

Well sorry sir but your ministers/reverend/pastors etc of the world get paid to sit and talk with you and challenge you just like you want to challenge religion. So I say your best chance at reason is speaking with them, not us.

All these weekly threads and yes they are weekly, they want to challenge an institution, thing is you can't prove to me there is no God just like I can't prove to you there is a God so then it comes to finding reasoning and who better to ask then the people that get paid to do what they do.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Well sorry sir but your ministers/reverend/pastors etc of the world get paid to sit and talk with you and challenge you just like you want to challenge religion. So I say your best chance at reason is speaking with them, not us.

Actually I've found far more depth of thought and knowledge in forums than I ever have talking to a pastor. Most pastors I've spoken with aren't interested in discussing the reasons for their faith, only the application. Questioning the foundations (biblical inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith, etc) rapidly leads to exhortations to pray and submit and, basically, stop thinking and just accept.

Though not always, I've met a few that I've had very interesting discussions with, but not really in the churches I've been a member of. Though I've been mostly part of the evangelical non-denominational group.

Originally Posted by Finny61

All these weekly threads and yes they are weekly, they want to challenge an institution, thing is you can't prove to me there is no God just like I can't prove to you there is a God so then it comes to finding reasoning and who better to ask then the people that get paid to do what they do.

Of course I can't prove to you there's no God, and I wouldn't expect you to prove to me there is a God (though I might gain insight into why you believe what you do that might lead me on a different path in my own mind). I would expect it's God's job to demonstrate himself.

Unfortunately the people paid to do what they do have proved inadequate to the task, while the people I've discussed things with on various forums have provided profound thoughts and insights, including this very forum, and including both religious and not-so-much.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How is it you see sending your child to public school with the limited involvement you will have in that situation is better risk management than homeschooling your children. Most parents who homeschool do it to better manage the risks associated with growing up.

No, they don't manage risk, they avoid it by not exposing their children to as many social experiences. That's their 'risk management' plan, avoidance. The 'risks' are a legitimate tradeoff for the social benefits gained. Also who said anything about limited parental involvement in the lives of their children. I would hope that part of being a good parent would be to be involved in their child's schooling and social life (by helping with homework, and encouraging their friendships, it's not like by sending them to a public school you're sending away your child to be raised 24/7 by ignorant teachers and Television.

The part I'm trying to get through is that lacking the social experiences denies them immense opportunities that cannot be simulated in a home environment, all because some parents are hypersensitive of the perils of the social environment present in public education. In my opinion you over-discount the benefits and create a giant hyperbole of the 'risks.' The points we differ on are the magnitude of the risk-return relationship.

I was mocking you not on the point that a child's brain is less developed but rather the assertation that some of the social 'perils' you described earlier were beyond the capacity of the adolescent mind who has been raised by and has the support of a caring and attentive family. A lot of the problems mentioned can be mitigated by good parenting and not sheltering.

[Finny61]

Photon - Suit yourself but I'd keep trying that route, because its their job to tell you how they got to be where they are, I'm shocked that they didn't go that route with you.

All in all, threads like this are not profound, insightful, or anything constructive that you might perhaps see. It's takings shots at something only a few are interested in even partaking in, that would be why I suppose people thanked my post on the first page, because we are tired of the same deadbeat arguments that in the end get us all nowhere.

Let's talk about something better suited to a wide audience instead of questioning people's character, this isn't a place where I come to think to be quite honest it's where I want to read funny posts, have a good laugh, mellow out, and dream of killing David Spence for his stupid weather forecasts.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Thor

...but if they remove their children from society and don't expose them to the real world I think that's a real case for abuse.

That's absurd and the reason you're taking so much criticism here. You disagree; we get that. But abuse...c'mon.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Photon - Suit yourself but I'd keep trying that route, because its their job to tell you how they got to be where they are, I'm shocked that they didn't go that route with you.

Oh they'll share how they gained their faith, but that's not really the foundation, that's just the trigger. But if I questioned the actual foundation, the discussion usually didn't go far.

Originally Posted by Finny61

All in all, threads like this are not profound, insightful, or anything constructive that you might perhaps see. It's takings shots at something only a few are interested in even partaking in, that would be why I suppose people thanked my post on the first page, because we are tired of the same deadbeat arguments that in the end get us all nowhere.

Well if one is tired of the "same deadbeat arguments", then just skip the thread, sheesh no one is forcing anyone to participate. And not every thread can be a goldmine.

On the other hand there was a couple of threads recently (the polygamy one and another one) where I thought there was a great deal of insight and excellent information and discussion. The thing is everyone has a different education and background, so there are some people here who I really look forward to their posts to just hear what they have to say, because their opinions are well thought out and very relevant.

Originally Posted by Finny61

Let's talk about something better suited to a wide audience instead of questioning people's character, this isn't a place where I come to think to be quite honest it's where I want to read funny posts, have a good laugh, mellow out, and dream of killing David Spence for his stupid weather forecasts.

I'll make sure all the people in the political and the science and the social issues threads apologize to you for harshing your mellow.

Really, there's room enough for light and serious discussion, it's not like there's a limited number of bits.

I don't know about you but my favorite times when I get together with family or friends is when there's a really interesting discussion, not when everyone brings a picture of a lolcat to share.