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

[T@T]

Home schooling may teach the same things to a child as far as basic learning goes but the kids miss the most important part of schooling...how to grow up be socially responsible.
Having said that because of the size of this family I doubt this will be a problem, at least for the older kids anyway.

[Calgaryborn]

The advantage of a homeschool teacher over a public school teacher is the one on one time the homeschool parent can offer. Skills that your child get quickly you move on from and the areas where they struggle you stop and concentrate on. A public school teacher will have maybe 20 students they are teaching at once. They have to crawl through the material because some of the class won't learn certain things as fast as others. It's no wonder kids start to hate school. I taught my oldest son kindergarten/grade one and his brother kindergarten. It wasn't hard but, I didn't have the time to commit to it so I put them in public school for grade one and two. They were both where they were suppose to be for their age groups and both had excellent attention spans/study skills.

When I first enrolled the boys the Principle at the school asked me nerviously if my sons had any problems interacting with girls. I still don't know why he asked such a strange question. Maybe he held the common misconception that homeschooled children are somehow dwarfted socially.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The advantage of a homeschool teacher over a public school teacher is the one on one time the homeschool parent can offer. Skills that your child get quickly you move on from and the areas where they struggle you stop and concentrate on. A public school teacher will have maybe 20 students they are teaching at once. They have to crawl through the material because some of the class won't learn certain things as fast as others. It's no wonder kids start to hate school. I taught my oldest son kindergarten/grade one and his brother kindergarten. It wasn't hard but, I didn't have the time to commit to it so I put them in public school for grade one and two. They were both where they were suppose to be for their age groups and both had excellent attention spans/study skills.

When I first enrolled the boys the Principle at the school asked me nerviously if my sons had any problems interacting with girls. I still don't know why he asked such a strange question. Maybe he held the common misconception that homeschooled children are somehow dwarfted socially.

You are right on your points.

It just seems so preposterous to me that as soon as home schooling is mentioned, people jump to the conclusions that 1. You are indoctrinating children with religion and 2. children will be stunted socially and intellectually.

I know many children who have done home schooling, most involved in sports programs, one not because of that. In ALL cases the children were extremely well adjusted in all facets of their development.

People assume home schooling does not involve other activities the children might be involved in. Or family and friends they are involved with. Or the fact that some homeschool as a group because they live in very isolated rural areas and they do not want their children to be on the bus for 3 to 4 hours a day. Or they just outright assume those families are social misfits and simply do not interact with anyone in the so called "outside" world.

Don't fear something and label something until you actullay know of what you speak.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

What does this have to do with religion? The real issue here is her crazy idiotic parents, who would still be crazy and idiotic without religion.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

[firebug]

I've sat on the sidelines for most of these discussions, but figured it is about time to jump in.

CP seems to have attracted this merry-band of atheists who seize upon any opportunity to start threads that pillory the belief system of their choice.

Now, I have been a 'godless capitalist' for upwards of 5 years now so I have no quarrel with their lack of faith. My issues arise from their use of arguments that are naive at best and intellectually corrupt at worst.

Imagine my horror when the first person on the forum to suggest imprisoning someone based upon their thoughts wasn't some religious zealot, but a 'free-thinking' atheist.

Maybe rather than prison, we can provide an opportunity to stifle these peoples freedom and teach them our correct way of thinking in new comfortable surroundings. We should call them reeducation camps.

It is threads like this that prevent the true goals of encouraging people to think critically and seek evidence prior to action, and ensure that atheists continue to be marginalized by the general public.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by firebug

I've sat on the sidelines for most of these discussions, but figured it is about time to jump in.

CP seems to have attracted this merry-band of atheists who seize upon any opportunity to start threads that pillory the belief system of their choice.

Now, I have been a 'godless capitalist' for upwards of 5 years now so I have no quarrel with their lack of faith. My issues arise from their use of arguments that are naive at best and intellectually corrupt at worst.

Imagine my horror when the first person on the forum to suggest imprisoning someone based upon their thoughts wasn't some religious zealot, but a 'free-thinking' atheist.

Maybe rather than prison, we can provide an opportunity to stifle these peoples freedom and teach them our correct way of thinking in new comfortable surroundings. We should call them reeducation camps.

It is threads like this that prevent the true goals of encouraging people to think critically and seek evidence prior to action, and ensure that atheists continue to be marginalized by the general public.

Canada tried that already........residential schools........I hope all remember how successful those were.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by SebC

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

It takes a cause...could be religion, could be country, could be money whatever...

[photon]

Originally Posted by firebug

CP seems to have attracted this merry-band of atheists who seize upon any opportunity to start threads that pillory the belief system of their choice.

So people can discuss politics, the Flames, photography, movies, or any other topic, but anything related to religion is beyond discussion?

I hardly think people are taking any opportunity, it's not like the OT forum is flooded with threads on the subject.

No one forces you to read the thread, if you don't like it, move on to something else.

Originally Posted by firebug

My issues arise from their use of arguments that are naive at best and intellectually corrupt at worst.

So, either ignore it, or engage and show the arguments to be such. No one is immune from having poor arguments, everyone should be open to having their positions tested and improved or disproved.

Sitting back and complaining about it though doesn't contribute anything.

[mykalberta]

11 kids.

Enough said.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

11 kids.

Enough said.

And now people will be judged and categorized according to how many children they do or do not have? Even though the children are loved, well cared for, well educated and not a burden on the state?

[firebug]

Originally Posted by photon

So people can discuss politics, the Flames, photography, movies, or any other topic, but anything related to religion is beyond discussion?

I hardly think people are taking any opportunity, it's not like the OT forum is flooded with threads on the subject.

No one forces you to read the thread, if you don't like it, move on to something else.

Ah, quite the contrary. I have no quarrel with the discussion of religion or tenets of belief, and do not wish to censor any topic of discussion from the board (I have lurked/participated on the board for such a long time because it generally has a high level of quality content).

My issue is solely the fact that some posters deliberately denigrate people of belief via the use of specious arguments. If I were to post a thread every time a Jew (or substitute any other cultural/ethnic affiliation of your choice) made a mistake, committed a crime, or did something 'dumb,' I suspect my welcome here would be short lived (and rightly so!).

Originally Posted by photon

So, either ignore it, or engage and show the arguments to be such. No one is immune from having poor arguments, everyone should be open to having their positions tested and improved or disproved.

Sitting back and complaining about it though doesn't contribute anything.

I do admit that my comment was light on content (didn't want to put too much into the thread if it was about to die anyways).

Originally Posted by Thor

My definition? I've already repeatedly said I have no problem with religious families bringing their children up religious, 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.

A child should be brought up in an environment where they can be exposed to ideas, ideologies and beliefs outside their own parents. How else could we live in a world without hatred and intolerance??

Here we have a poster who is advocating the removal of rights (being convicted for abuse will do that) for an individual based upon that individual indoctrinating his family on a belief system the poster rejects.

Unless Thor has discovered the 'un'-holy grail and can finally prove to everyone that there is in fact no god, I would contend that ultimately his belief system (even if it has far more grounding in rational thought) has no more basis for legal rights than a theistic one, and therefore would be disingenuous for him to petition to reduce the rights of others.

[photon]

Originally Posted by firebug

My issue is solely the fact that some posters deliberately denigrate people of belief via the use of specious arguments. If I were to post a thread every time a Jew (or substitute any other cultural/ethnic affiliation of your choice) made a mistake, committed a crime, or did something 'dumb,' I suspect my welcome here would be short lived (and rightly so!).

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).

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).

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...

Originally Posted by firebug

Here we have a poster who is advocating the removal of rights (being convicted for abuse will do that) for an individual based upon that individual indoctrinating his family on a belief system the poster rejects.

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

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. 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.

Originally Posted by firebug

Unless Thor has discovered the 'un'-holy grail and can finally prove to everyone that there is in fact no god, I would contend that ultimately his belief system (even if it has far more grounding in rational thought) has no more basis for legal rights than a theistic one, and therefore would be disingenuous for him to petition to reduce the rights of others.

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

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by redforever

You are right on your points.

It just seems so preposterous to me that as soon as home schooling is mentioned, people jump to the conclusions that 1. You are indoctrinating children with religion and 2. children will be stunted socially and intellectually.

I know many children who have done home schooling, most involved in sports programs, one not because of that.In ALL cases the children were extremely well adjusted in all facets of their development.

People assume home schooling does not involve other activities the children might be involved in. Or family and friends they are involved with. Or the fact that some homeschool as a group because they live in very isolated rural areas and they do not want their children to be on the bus for 3 to 4 hours a day. Or they just outright assume those families are social misfits and simply do not interact with anyone in the so called "outside" world.

Don't fear something and label something until you actullay know of what you speak.

I cannot fathom how someone would ever think that removing a child's exposure to many other people could ever result in no negative social consequences. For rural people where there are logistical concerns, fine. For one-on-one learning, fine I can agree that there are intellectual advantages should the child's teacher be competent. However I do not see an upside socially whatsoever.

At the begining of University a very wise Professor quoted to me that 90% of what I gain knowledgewise and experiencewise from my University days would come from outside the classroom. Now years after University I have to say that his words are very true. I think the same can be said from my primary school life as well. A lot of that had to do with the vast number of people I got to meet and work with by means of being in a place that happened to have hundreds or thousands of people present. Those connections made, and social skills gained have endured well beyond University and High School and most likely last my whole life.

The true measure of whether or not those social consequences don't rear their ugly heads can only come in adulthood, not whether or not your 12 year old is a perfect little angel getting straight A's, never back talking, and very socialble with the children pre-selected to be their play-dates or peers in their pre-selected extra-curricular activities.

[jammies]

I don't think people should indoctrinate their children with religion (or any other belief system, for that matter), but I categorize it as an issue that has no solution not worse than the problem itself. As soon as you have the government dictating the right way to think and act in your home, you are in a tyranny.

On the other hand, I think home schooling is ultimately not in society's best interests - part of the purpose of schooling is to prepare children for interacting with others, including those that do not share their culture or religion. Home schooling might achieve acceptable or even outstanding results when evaluated by tests, but the idea that tests measure scholastic success in the first place is extremely debatable.

In other words, the private sphere should be inviolate, but it should not be possible for children to remain within it exclusively. Children are not property and parents do not have the right to do as they please with their minds anymore than their bodies, and the best way to ensure this is so is to have them experiencing some level of independence outside the home, which is satisfactorily realized by having them attend school.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I cannot fathom how someone would ever think that removing a child's exposure to many other people could ever result in no negative social consequences.

Perhaps you can't fathom the unique exposure these children get and those benefits to their development. Having well adjusted older siblings and her parents as role models is far better than peers her own age. She obviously knows how to work on a team and take responsibilty for herself and younger members of the family. She isn't bringing the junk home she picks up at school everyday. So she may never meet a bully or a drug dealer or some guy looking to play her for a booty call before she is 18;does that make her socially ######ed? Do you think she might be better able to cope with those experiences and choices at 18 than at 13 years old. I've met older teen girls and boys who have experience a ton of life early. I don't think it benefits them as much as you seem to think.

This girl was out soul winning one Friday night with her Youth Pastor. That tells me her church has a youth group and is large enough to employ two ministers. She has other teens to interact with even if the film makers tried to leave the impression she doesn't.

[Calgaryborn]

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.

After the Oilers and the Canucks Christianity is this sites faviourite whipping boy. You and your band of brothers take every opportunity to express your disdain for religion and relish any specific chance to have a go at Christianity. Yes this site is open to discuss most anything and Christianity shouldn't be an exclude topic. But someone pointing out the boorish behaviour of you guys and questioning the quality of many of your arguements shouldn't be excluded subject matter either. You earned it. Take it like a man.

[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.'

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Perhaps you can't fathom the unique exposure these children get and those benefits to their development. Having well adjusted older siblings and her parents as role models is far better than peers her own age. She obviously knows how to work on a team and take responsibilty for herself and younger members of the family. She isn't bringing the junk home she picks up at school everyday. So she may never meet a bully or a drug dealer or some guy looking to play her for a booty call before she is 18;does that make her socially ######ed? Do you think she might be better able to cope with those experiences and choices at 18 than at 13 years old. I've met older teen girls and boys who have experience a ton of life early. I don't think it benefits them as much as you seem to think.

This girl was out soul winning one Friday night with her Youth Pastor. That tells me her church has a youth group and is large enough to employ two ministers. She has other teens to interact with even if the film makers tried to leave the impression she doesn't.

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.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

This girl was out soul winning one Friday night with her Youth Pastor.

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.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

After the Oilers and the Canucks Christianity is this sites faviourite whipping boy. You and your band of brothers take every opportunity to express your disdain for religion and relish any specific chance to have a go at Christianity. Yes this site is open to discuss most anything and Christianity shouldn't be an exclude topic. But someone pointing out the boorish behaviour of you guys and questioning the quality of many of your arguements shouldn't be excluded subject matter either. You earned it. Take it like a man.

, 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.

[troutman]

Soul winning?

Aretha Franklin is the Queen of Soul.