237 replies to this topic

[abolitionist]

Ok Ben, since you like religion being forced on people

you have to go to church every sunday now and listen to fire and brimstone scare tactics

feel better?

There's a big difference between not particularly liking something and thinking it should come under state control. The above argument is possibly your most infantile and nonsensical yet. Why should I have to go to church every week merely because I think we shouldn't ban religion? Your agenda is purely fascist, in the true sense of the word.

Damnit, I said I was walking away and you suck me back in.

the point is;

if you want protection from religion being forced upon you and others

then you need to support laws to that effect

otherwise people will do what they can get away with

if we didn't have separation of church and state legally enforced, you can be sure that the christian majority would try to control our lives

Edited by abolitionist, 15 April 2009 - 06:07 AM.

[abolitionist]

I know a lady who was born with a cleft palate and her father didn't want to pay for the operation at a young age to fix it

instead he told her that it was god's will that she be ugly and have to endure ridicule at school

that is abuse

so is forcing your child to go to your church against their will and trying to brainwash them with guilt trips and fear of damnation

it's wrong to do that to another human being, and anything wrong has to be prevented with laws

if there is no enforcement, then people will do what they can get away with

it's necessary

Edited by abolitionist, 15 April 2009 - 06:10 AM.

[rwac]

if we didn't have separation of church and state legally enforced, you can be sure that the christian majority would try to control our lives

You're seem to be trying to control their lives instead.

[abolitionist]

if we didn't have separation of church and state legally enforced, you can be sure that the christian majority would try to control our lives

You're seem to be trying to control their lives instead.

yes, they need to be regulated, just like all religious influence

(by the way we're having a discussion about laws and rights, nobody is controlling anyone here)

do you understand the concept of separation of church and state and religious freedom?

how do you think these concepts are protected?

by asking people to respect them?

some people are libertarian to a fault thinking that group dynamics in a free state without rules and laws will result in the protection of human rights

it's not based upon reality or understanding of human nature

why does your profile say you are from 'never never land?'

Edited by abolitionist, 15 April 2009 - 07:33 AM.

[rwac]

I know a lady who was born with a cleft palate and her father didn't want to pay for the operation at a young age to fix it

instead he told her that it was god's will that she be ugly and have to endure ridicule at school

that is abuse

What about the parent who didn't send their child to the best possible school ?
Does that count as abuse too ?
What about if they don't buy the best quality of food because they can't afford it or don't care ?

Where do you draw the line.

[abolitionist]

I know a lady who was born with a cleft palate and her father didn't want to pay for the operation at a young age to fix it

instead he told her that it was god's will that she be ugly and have to endure ridicule at school

that is abuse

What about the parent who didn't send their child to the best possible school ?
Does that count as abuse too ?
What about if they don't buy the best quality of food because they can't afford it or don't care ?

Where do you draw the line.

first look around at existing laws, we already do draw lines such as these and have laws against abuse
the goal is to raise quality of life and protect human rights - and we should continually seek to pressure parents to provide the best for their children - this kind of social pressure is natural and has always existed
at the same time, we have to make reasonable practical demands and ensure that parents are able to provide the best for their children with public services

in the example listed above, the surgery for cleft palate is inexpensive and effective if utilized early in life

waiting until a later age causes lifelong cosmetic detriment - not to mention psychological scarring - and there is help out there for people who can't pay for the surgery

in the USA, it's reasonable to expect that parents try to give their children the surgery and ask for help if they need it

Edited by abolitionist, 15 April 2009 - 07:42 AM.

[rwac]

yes, they need to be regulated, just like all religious influence

(by the way we're having a discussion about laws and rights, nobody is controlling anyone here)

You're suggesting a law that would control other people.

do you understand the concept of separation of church and state and religious freedom?

how do you think these concepts are protected?

by asking people to respect them?

some people are libertarian to a fault thinking that group dynamics in a free state without rules and laws will result in the protection of human rights

it's not based upon reality or understanding of human nature

Religious freedom would include teaching your children about religion.
The children are then free to do as they please, as well.
By the same freedom, you are free to follow any or no religion.

These concepts are protected by the rule of law.

No rules = Anarchist.
Libertarian = Rules lean towards freedom, as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom.

Peter Pan lives in never never land, where no one grows old (or grows up ...).

[rwac]

first look around at existing laws, we already do draw lines such as these and have laws against abuse
the goal is to raise quality of life and protect human rights - and we should continually seek to pressure parents to provide the best for their children - this kind of social pressure is natural and has always existed
at the same time, we have to make reasonable practical demands and ensure that parents are able to provide the best for their children with public services

in the example listed above, the surgery for cleft palate is inexpensive and effective if utilized early in life

waiting until a later age causes lifelong cosmetic detriment - not to mention psychological scarring - and there is help out there for people who can't pay for the surgery

in the USA, it's reasonable to expect that parents try to give their children the surgery and ask for help if they need it

It's quite reasonable to expect this.
It's unreasonable to call it abuse if they don't have the surgery.

[Ben Simon]

Abolitionist, you have stated in this thread that you wish to make religion illegal. Not just teaching it to children, but religion itself. How is this not completely contradictory to all your talk of freedom? You don't want freedom at all. You want people to do and think as you say, by your orders.

The people you meet on the internet.

[sUper GeNius]

http://www.nytimes.c.../02blow.html?em

[drus]

one word answer....no.

[Esoparagon]

I hate indoctrination of kids and I think it ruins our society. But I also don't think it should be illegal. Parents are going to raise their kids how they see fit anyway. These people LITERALLY believe in this shit. You can't just tell them not to bring it up at home or whenever. Their whole lives are lived through this belief in god or jesus or vishnu.

[russianBEAR]

That was a pretty solid way to take some more pot shots at religion, I like how it's phrased in a form of an innocent survey.

Look, I was indoctrinated a lot by my mother who FORCED me to go to church, under subliminal threats I went to all-night masses for all the major holidays, baptized, the whole nine.

Then I was forced to do that same thing when we've moved to the US. Then I grew up and woke up and ripped that cross of my chest one morning and still cant remember how far I threw it but it was pretty far

So if you actually question alot of the information presented, it doesnt matter if you grew up in a family of religious fundamentalist nuts. You might have more underlying issues though.

On the other hand, I'd LOVE to be in the top managerial position of some religious cult/sect. Talked to my friend the other day though, but he said there aren't any openings since him and his friend are pretty much running their cult alone. That's a shame :(

Edited by russianBEAR, 07 August 2009 - 04:05 AM.

[forever freedom]

On the other hand, I'd LOVE to be in the top managerial position of some religious cult/sect. Talked to my friend the other day though, but he said there aren't any openings since him and his friend are pretty much running their cult alone. That's a shame :(

Yeah, having a zombie army does seem fun . If nothing else, it must be one hell of an experience.

Edited by forever freedom, 07 August 2009 - 09:35 PM.

[russianBEAR]

On the other hand, I'd LOVE to be in the top managerial position of some religious cult/sect. Talked to my friend the other day though, but he said there aren't any openings since him and his friend are pretty much running their cult alone. That's a shame :(

Yeah, having a zombie army does seem fun . If nothing else, it must be one hell of an experience.

Well the problem is they run into a "orthodox army of zombies". My friend was hostin a pagan ritual for his sect and he said a bunch of armed people showed up in Land Cruisers, tore everything down, then the news channels came and they said that it was the orthodox police (they actually DO have an Orthodox Special Police here no joke!) and they busted a bunch of satanists.


All they were doing was hosting some Slavic pagan thing without any hint of sacrifice and violence. So the religious nuts over here are armed with guns and drive armored SUVs...try to tell them when religion should be legal, they come to your house.

I'm absolutely serious about this too, we got no separation of church and state really

[kismet]

Religious freedom would include teaching your children about religion.

What about freedom from indoctrination, don't children deserve that? And isn't it the duty of parents to care for children, including providing factual education? (which means that teaching creationism & other BS constitutes actual neglect)

One thing is for sure, children are not religious. I can't decide whether parents should be allowed to teach them fundamentalist religion (i.e. how far they should be allowed to go), but Dawkins line of thought is pretty much unrivaled: children do not belong to any religion until they have grown up and have chosen their religion.

Shudder.

Statements such as these make any further discussion seem inevitably useless I'm afraid. What more can I say but that I hope I never find myself living in the kind of totalitarian system you are endorsing, and simply move on?

Ben... you effectively argued that 'extreme examples of forced religion' are not abuse. How do you justify that? Or am I misunderstanding your sentiment? I do not agree with the OP that banning religion is the sine qua non, but it is very difficult to argue that indoctrination is not abuse.

What about the parent who didn't send their child to the best possible school ?
Does that count as abuse too ?
What about if they don't buy the best quality of food because they can't afford it or don't care ?

Where do you draw the line.

How I hate people employing the slippery slope argument, even if it can be a valid argument, to me it always reads like evasion/strawmen. Who cares were we draw the line in other cases, indoctrination is undeniably abuse. What should be up for debate, is what actually constitutes indoctrination and what does not. BTW, yes I think that not buying the best food and having your child go to the best possible school is, to put it mildly, unfair if you can afford it and trending towards neglect ("not caring" implies neglect by its very nature) - but I consider this besides the point and irrelevant to this discussion.

Edited by kismet, 09 August 2009 - 12:34 AM.

[Reno]

That is such a bad poll. Parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. That's one of the prerogatives of being a parent. Sure there are certain restrictions society can place on parents for the safety of the children, but those restrictions are strictly in place for abuse.

If you want to have a positive effect on the structure of society then create a mandatory sociology course for k-12th grade. Teach the next generation how to deal with each other. Messing with people's religion would only piss people off, and serve to pour gasoline on religious extremist group's claims.

Edited by bobscrachy, 09 August 2009 - 04:47 AM.

[rwac]

Religious freedom would include teaching your children about religion.

What about freedom from indoctrination, don't children deserve that? And isn't it the duty of parents to care for children, including providing factual education? (which means that teaching creationism & other BS constitutes actual neglect)

One thing is for sure, children are not religious. I can't decide whether parents should be allowed to teach them fundamentalist religion (i.e. how far they should be allowed to go), but Dawkins line of thought is pretty much unrivaled: children do not belong to any religion until they have grown up and have chosen their religion.

If atheism necessitates the micro-managing of other people's lives, then it's as much a blight as religion, thank you very much.

Children do not get the same freedoms adults do. It's just how it works.
And who are you to decide what is "factual education" anyway ?

There are very good reasons why most centralized planning doesn't work very well.
And this includes Dawkins' grand declarations about children.

[abolitionist]

Abolitionist, you have stated in this thread that you wish to make religion illegal. Not just teaching it to children, but religion itself. How is this not completely contradictory to all your talk of freedom? You don't want freedom at all. You want people to do and think as you say, by your orders.

The people you meet on the internet.

I said i wanted to make religion illegal? I don't remember that but whatever.

Freedom is just a means to an end really, freedom itself isn't valuable.

Edited by abolitionist, 09 August 2009 - 06:43 AM.

[abolitionist]

Religious freedom would include teaching your children about religion.

What about freedom from indoctrination, don't children deserve that? And isn't it the duty of parents to care for children, including providing factual education? (which means that teaching creationism & other BS constitutes actual neglect)

One thing is for sure, children are not religious. I can't decide whether parents should be allowed to teach them fundamentalist religion (i.e. how far they should be allowed to go), but Dawkins line of thought is pretty much unrivaled: children do not belong to any religion until they have grown up and have chosen their religion.

If atheism necessitates the micro-managing of other people's lives, then it's as much a blight as religion, thank you very much.

Children do not get the same freedoms adults do. It's just how it works.
And who are you to decide what is "factual education" anyway ?

There are very good reasons why most centralized planning doesn't work very well.
And this includes Dawkins' grand declarations about children.

an interesting attempt to twist things around, but actually preventing parents from forcing their religion on children is not micromanagement - it's protecting rights

have you been listening to the Alex Jones show?

[abolitionist]

That is such a bad poll. Parents have the right to raise their kids how they see fit. That's one of the prerogatives of being a parent. Sure there are certain restrictions society can place on parents for the safety of the children, but those restrictions are strictly in place for abuse.

If you want to have a positive effect on the structure of society then create a mandatory sociology course for k-12th grade. Teach the next generation how to deal with each other. Messing with people's religion would only piss people off, and serve to pour gasoline on religious extremist group's claims.

oh yes, i think polls are bad when they don't support my biases too, that's human nature

human nature also means that we have to enshrine rights so that people do not force their biases on others

[abolitionist]

That was a pretty solid way to take some more pot shots at religion, I like how it's phrased in a form of an innocent survey.

Look, I was indoctrinated a lot by my mother who FORCED me to go to church, under subliminal threats I went to all-night masses for all the major holidays, baptized, the whole nine.

Then I was forced to do that same thing when we've moved to the US. Then I grew up and woke up and ripped that cross of my chest one morning and still cant remember how far I threw it but it was pretty far

So if you actually question alot of the information presented, it doesnt matter if you grew up in a family of religious fundamentalist nuts. You might have more underlying issues though.

On the other hand, I'd LOVE to be in the top managerial position of some religious cult/sect. Talked to my friend the other day though, but he said there aren't any openings since him and his friend are pretty much running their cult alone. That's a shame :(

I'm glad you are enjoying your right to not have religion forced upon you.

[rwac]

an interesting attempt to twist things around, but actually preventing parents from forcing their religion on children is not micromanagement - it's protecting rights

have you been listening to the Alex Jones show?

Every stupid infringement of our rights has been sold as "for the children", so forgive me if I'm not very sympathetic to that argument.

Parents teach everything they know to their children.
Religion is just one of those things.
If you have children, you are completely free to teach them atheism if that's what you choose to teach.

Also, do you just make up new rights to fit your agenda as you go along ?

Edited by rwac, 09 August 2009 - 07:04 AM.

[rwac]

On the other hand, I'd LOVE to be in the top That managerial position of some religious cult/sect. Talked to my friend the other day though, but he said there aren't any openings since him and his friend are pretty much running their cult alone. That's a shame :(

So you don't want religion imposed on you, but you wouldn't mind imposing it on others.
Nice!

[abolitionist]

an interesting attempt to twist things around, but actually preventing parents from forcing their religion on children is not micromanagement - it's protecting rights

have you been listening to the Alex Jones show?

Every stupid infringement of our rights has been sold as "for the children", so forgive me if I'm not very sympathetic to that argument.

Parents teach everything they know to their children.
Religion is just one of those things.
If you have children, you are completely free to teach them atheism if that's what you choose to teach.

Also, do you just make up new rights to fit your agenda as you go along ?

Ah I see you believe that parents should have the right to force their religion on their children, so what should prevent me from forcing my religion on you?

Should it only be legal for me to do so when you are young and impressionable?

Or only legal if I get legal custody of you?

Edited by abolitionist, 09 August 2009 - 07:57 AM.

[rwac]

Ah I see you believe that parents should have the right to force their religion on their children, so what should prevent me from forcing my religion on you?

Should it only be legal for me to do so when you are young and impressionable?

Should the government have a right to "force" children into schools ?
Should parents have the right to "force" children to not eat candy all day ?

This is ridiculous.
Children are minors and don't have all the rights that adults have.

[abolitionist]

Ah I see you believe that parents should have the right to force their religion on their children, so what should prevent me from forcing my religion on you?

Should it only be legal for me to do so when you are young and impressionable?

Should the government have a right to "force" children into schools ?
Should parents have the right to "force" children to not eat candy all day ?

This is ridiculous.
Children are minors and don't have all the rights that adults have.

So you're saying that because we force children to do things that we should also be able to force religion upon them because children just shouldn't have their rights protected?

Do you think an education is the same thing as religion?

What ethical value or principle do you use to determine which rights are valid?

[rwac]

So you're saying that because we force children to do things that we should also be able to force religion upon them because children just shouldn't have their rights protected?

Do you think an education is the same thing as religion?

What ethical value or principle do you use to determine which rights are valid?

I believe that parents are allowed freedom with respect to their children, Unless they cause significant physical or psychological damage.

I don't believe religion causes significant psychological damage to the child per se.

[abolitionist]

So you're saying that because we force children to do things that we should also be able to force religion upon them because children just shouldn't have their rights protected?

Do you think an education is the same thing as religion?

What ethical value or principle do you use to determine which rights are valid?

I believe that parents are allowed freedom with respect to their children, Unless they cause significant physical or psychological damage.

I don't believe religion causes significant psychological damage to the child per se.

Why should parents be allowed freedom with respect to their children?

You don't think indoctrination or brainwashing is significant damage?

Edited by abolitionist, 09 August 2009 - 02:57 PM.

[rwac]

Why should parents be allowed freedom with respect to their children?

You don't think indoctrination or brainwashing is significant damage?

Because distributed self-interest directed systems work better than central planning.

Indoctrination is merely a fact of life, It's a widely used tool.

How do you think the military convinces people to sacrifice themselves ?
Why do you think people do stupid things rooting for their home team ?
Why do people do ridiculous things to get into a fraternity?
Why do you believe that it's wrong to hurt other people or steal things from them ?