I Believe.......

It is equal to brainwashing. We need to teach our children to live by the golden rule, be good citizens in society and let them form their own opinions on what to believe as far as some religion goes.

JojoWazoo JojoWazoo
46-50, F
13 Responses Feb 14, 2009

Winston as a religious person who hates intolerance and prejudice I think you have hit the nail on the head completely because we still have to live in the same world and you obviously have a clear understanding what real humanitarianism is. Being outrightly offensive is not constructive in stopping real abuse, as for bringing up my kids I would never abuse them and I'm a great believer in positive parenting which has nothing to do with religion and works very well because the child always feels loved and that is the most important thing to give to a child, I never had children as a sacrifice to God...lol.

idiot

You like picking on someone who is suffering!!!!!

Are you obsessed with me or something.
The only time people resort to personal stuff is when they have not done so well in debating things! It always happens so I must have said something you cannot debate!

I suppose positive parenting is an idiotic thing to do for nasty folk.

1 More Response

PPPPPshhhiiitttttttttttt.

Well I always thought that it was in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, like you said. <br />
<br />
According to Ola's tortured logic, I guess one cannot turn the other cheek unless they accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, lolz.

Thank you for stepping in in my absence V. It's not anywhere in the bible. It's the fictional biblical equivalent which is found in Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." <br />
Of course it's worded differently depending on which fictional "version"of the bible we're talking about here.

Of course you can have the golden rule without the Bible. It did not "come from the Bible", Jesus is simply the most cited source. There were similar "rules" in tribal cultures which predate Christianity. <br />
<br />
Even if the Bible were the single source of the golden rule (which again, it's not) then that wouldn't mean a person would have to accept an entire religion to adopt a single idea. What a silly notion. <br />
<br />
I like how you bring up Father Christmas and tooth fairies, it's appropriate because that's exactly the kind of lying that we do to our kids when we teach them religion. We are teaching them things that no one has any real knowledge of, namely concepts like heaven and angels and eternal hellfire. These things are in a book and parents pretend to know them, and they imprison their children's impressionable minds. At least with Santa and the Easter bunny parents eventually tell kids the truth.

Thank you. I'm glad you think so, Winston. I raised my children to live by the golden rule. They turned out to be good productive citizens of the world who care about other people and the environment. All that without fear of fire and brimstone and eternal damnation. Imagine that! :-)

Sorry Jojo, meant to say that I liked your story, but forgot :P <br />
<br />
I disagree with the group name to some extent, but agree with your story. Parenting is a balancing act between bringing up children to be decent people and to think for themselves - golden rule is a pretty good foundation for that.

Thank you, Betty. After being forced to go to church and catechism as a child and teenager, I swore I wouldn't do that to my children. I resented it since I believed it was all a lie since I was a young teenager.

I'm not conceding it's child abuse, I'm saying it arguably *could* be child abuse in extreme circumstances - circumstances that would still entail child abuse without the religious aspect. "Religion is child abuse" as a "statement of fact" can only mean one thing, that it should be illegal. People who say "Meat is Murder" aren't just trying point out that it involves ending a life, they're making a moral comparison and a pseudo-criminal accusation. "Religion is bad for children" is a different statement that I'd be much more in agreement with.

If you can agree that religion is bad for children as you say, why would it not be child abuse to to teach them something that " is bad for " them ? Most parents teach their kids that smoking is bad for them because, in fact it is. Wouldn't it be child abuse for a parent to teach their children that smoking is good for them ? Indoctinating young people who have not attained a brain developed enough to question is primarily done to deprive the child from making informend decisions. Something as important in a persons life as a belief system should be done at an age appropriate to the subject without having to overcome the poisoned well.

Because doing something that harms somebody is not the definition of abuse. They don't think they're doing something harmful, they honestly believe they're doing what's best for the kid. You can call them misinformed, even deluded, but "abusers" is ridiculous hyperbole designed solely to further polarise the debate.

It seems a common theme in atheist-versus-religious arguments that both sides steadfastly refuse to accept that the other side thinks in a fundamentally different way about the subject in question.

That may be true, but now you're talking tactics and not statement of fact. You're conceding that it is child abuse, but it doesn't do any good to describe it as such. <br />
<br />
Many atheists and scientists are anti-Dawkins and anti-Harris because they feel that their approach is too confrontational. I disagree. I think it would be too confrontational if that was the only approach used by anyone, but I feel that we need as many different approaches as possible to overcome tradition, indoctrination, and dogma.

I'm not sure there can be any such thing as ob<x>jectivity on a subject like this. And children are scared into behaving all the time - you could certainly argue that traumatising kids with real fundamentalist fire-and-brimstone is a kind of abuse, but the blanket statement "religion is child abuse" is the kind of deliberately emotive rhetoric that polarises the debate unnecessarily. You'll never convince someone religious not to raise their kid religiously because "it's abuse", just like evangelists don't make converts by simply claiming atheism is amoral.

Whether or not the parents consider it abuse has no bearing on whether or not it should be considered abuse. If one looks at it ob<x>jectively, we see that scaring children with eternal torment if they don't believe in things which we have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty... yes, that's abuse.

I'm an atheist myself, and have a fairly negative opinion of religion (or more specifically, of educated adults who follow organised religion unquestioningly). But I think this argument is simplistic, Church-of-Dawkins s***-stirring. People who bring up their children religiously do so because they hold the religious views themselves, so are obviously not going to consider religion a bad influence, so are obviously not going to consider it child abuse. It's like saying it's child abuse to raise a child to be stupid - it's not a deliberate action, so it's a meaningless accusation.