Is religious indoctrination child abuse?

Is religious indoctrination child abuse?

Opinions please.

This should give the Atheist Crazy Gang a a bit of variety?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

This should give the Atheist Crazy Gang a a bit of variety?

You have ended up not making any contribution to the topic.Let me throw the question again:Is religious indoctrination a child abuse? "I just hope you answer it this time"

Originally posted by Contaminator:

Opinions please.

yep.It is

How do you distinguish teaching from indoctrination?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

How do you distinguish teaching from indoctrination?

Just watch the documentary Jesus Camp.

I personally am an atheist, but I think it is absurd to teach kids about god one way or the other until they are old enough to actually understand the concept and repercussions of the idea of god. I think at around 12 I'd like to introduce any kid I have to several different religions and atheism and allow them to make their own decisions.

On the same note though, I don't know if it's right to shield children from religion when they are a child... if they wanted to go to church with a friend, I don't see a problem with that. I wouldn't really even care if my child was a Christian or Muslim or Hindu as long as they came to that conclusion with a sound and mature mind.

Does anyone really believe that a kid can understand what god is and what god's existence means at the age of 5?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

I personally am an atheist, but I think it is absurd to teach kids about god one way or the other until they are old enough to actually understand the concept and repercussions of the idea of god. I think at around 12 I'd like to introduce any kid I have to several different religions and atheism and allow them to make their own decisions.

On the same note though, I don't know if it's right to shield children from religion when they are a child... if they wanted to go to church with a friend, I don't see a problem with that. I wouldn't really even care if my child was a Christian or Muslim or Hindu as long as they came to that conclusion with a sound and mature mind.

Does anyone really believe that a kid can understand what god is and what god's existence means at the age of 5?

Why not? Most of them have little difficulty with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Does anyone really believe that a kid can understand what god is and what god's existence means at the age of 5?

That's probably what the OP meant. At least I hope so

Originally posted by OnetimePoster:

Why not? Most of them have little difficulty with Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

That is pointless fantasy. They are meaningless characters. The idea of god is very meaningful, significant, and complicated. A 5 year old believing in Santa Claus shows that a 5 year old's idea of god is just some magical father figure in the sky. A 5 year old obviously doesn't question or think about the impact of anything.

Sorry if that's exactly what you were trying to point out. I have a hard time keeping people's positions straight sometimes.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

How do you distinguish teaching from indoctrination?

Ever heard of Catholic guilt? That'd be a prime example. For the most part, school has no place telling any such things, how to think, etc. Teaching tries to give you logical thought while indoctrination tries to get rid of it (if only in some select areas).

Originally posted by parkerjm:

I think at around 12 I'd like to introduce any kid I have to several different religions and atheism and allow them to make their own decisions.

That seems a tad late to me. At any rate, be sure to include some died-out religions.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

That is pointless fantasy. They are meaningless characters. The idea of god is very meaningful, significant, and complicated.

Is it really? An adult is much more complicated than a 5 year old, so it follows that an adult's god should also be much more "meaningful, significant, and complicated." Does that make the idea fundamentally different?

Well, the tooth fairy is meaningless, it's basically to make the kid feel better for having parts of their body fall off... but Santa Clause, is about the same as the Christian "God" though... judgmental prick, watches you pee, wants offerings/tributes, you have to "believe" and devote yourself to him, otherwise bad s**t happens, fond of slavery, ambivalent towards animals, central character of a holiday that has little meaning anymore, lives "up above" everyone else, etc...(promptly digresses)

Anyways... my point was, there is a lot of stuff tied up in "Santa Claus", and it's sort of a "gateway god"... which is basically the whole point to him.

Originally posted by Contaminator:

Is religious indoctrination child abuse?

No it isn't. The same way social indoctrination isn't any abuse.

Calling it an abuse will be the perspective of Ego-individualist oriented societies while cultures who develops a deeper sense of belonging between individuals and their groups will act rising their children as member of their group, therefore with all their believes, traditions and behavior.

Later, when children are reaching adult time they are in fact able to analyze and evaluate options and they will choose. Some will leave the group, others will remain. That's how societies are build.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

I think at around 12 I'd like to introduce any kid I have to several different religions and atheism and allow them to make their own decisions.

About the time they start school?? We brainwash them about homosexuality, government and you people are against teaching a child about their religion...??

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Ever heard of Catholic guilt?

Non Catholics have no guilt or do have guilt for that matter?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

No it isn't. The same way social indoctrination isn't any abuse.

Calling it an abuse will be the perspective of Ego-individualist oriented societies while cultures who develops a deeper sense of belonging between individuals and their groups will act rising their children as member of their group, therefore with all their believes, traditions and behavior.

You think forcing beliefs upon children while not allowing them to critically examine or question these beliefs isn't abuse? There's a very important difference between indoctrination and education which is precisely that.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Non Catholics have no guilt or do have guilt for that matter?

It was just an example, not the sole example.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

It was just an example, not the sole example

You are making assumptions mainly that there is a association.. Sorry partner that is horseshxt.. I am not a behaviorist but I think that could be argued.

Originally posted by Denny77:

About the time they start school?? We brainwash them about homosexuality, government and you people are against teaching a child about their religion...??

In which way do we brainwash about homosexuality? If you teach them it's bad or if you teach them it's not bad, couldn't that be considered brainwashing either way? Or is it only brainwashing if people are teaching kids something other than what you believe?

Also, I guess... the time they start school? If your kids are starting school at age 12, you are doing it wrong. I think most kids start at 4 or 5 these days.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That seems a tad late to me. At any rate, be sure to include some died-out religions.

Maybe it is a little late.. what is the right age? I said 12 because that is personally when I became interested in the idea of god.. I was a Baptist up until 12-13, then I started thinking about it more and became an evil atheist.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Is it really? An adult is much more complicated than a 5 year old, so it follows that an adult's god should also be much more "meaningful, significant, and complicated." Does that make the idea fundamentally different?

What I mean to say is that at 5, a kid doesn't consider the implications of his belief. At our age, we can consider the depths and complexities of religion. For instance, the specifics of the gospel in the Christian bible and what they mean, and we can form questions and criticisms about it, such as the unknown authorship, reasons for the hundreds of different versions, etc. But, I guess even if you teach a kid about god before he can understand doesn't mean he won't question it later... I guess I am confusing teaching and indoctrination. I was taught, but not indoctrinated I guess. I went to church every Sunday, but outside of church, god played little role in my life.

If you're continuously told that pretty much everything you do is sinful and even questioning that sinfulness is sinful then yes, I do think there's at least some correlation.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Calling it an abuse will be the perspective of Ego-individualist oriented societies while cultures who develops a deeper sense of belonging between individuals and their groups will act rising their children as member of their group, therefore with all their believes, traditions and behavior.

Language and social behaviour are important for living within a group. Those are things that are internal to the culture, means by which an individual can contribute to the whole. Religion is about something external, something not necessary for the group to exist comfortably. Traditions exist independently of faith.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Maybe it is a little late.. what is the right age? I said 12 because that is personally when I became interested in the idea of god.. I was a Baptist up until 12-13, then I started thinking about it more and became an evil atheist.

I've been told all kinds of mythologies and fairy tales since a young age (and read them myself, well, since I could read). I would simply consider it world heritage and culture to tell your children all about that. If they don't know those things at 12-13 yet then wouldn't they just be ignorant for their age?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

What I mean to say is that at 5, a kid doesn't consider the implications of his belief. At our age, we can consider the depths and complexities of religion. For instance, the specifics of the gospel in the Christian bible and what they mean, and we can form questions and criticisms about it, such as the unknown authorship, reasons for the hundreds of different versions, etc. But, I guess even if you teach a kid about god before he can understand doesn't mean he won't question it later... I guess I am confusing teaching and indoctrination. I was taught, but not indoctrinated I guess. I went to church every Sunday, but outside of church, god played little role in my life.

I don't know about when I was 5, but I certainly did that when I was 7. Anyway, being taught just means being taught about the existence and content. Indoctrination means saying it's the truth to some extent, but more specifically saying that questioning said truth is bad. Whether that happens by verbal rejection of questions or threatening with such a thing as Hell isn't really relevant. Alternatively it could also mean trying to fool the children into believing it's the truth while not questioning it, but that sounds harder to accomplish. Then again, that would be the ultimate indoctrination.

Some very bad people have infiltrated the church! Secretly going up the ranks and made a mockery of a very good belief system. Now, it's up to us good people to eliminate the bad element ! And restore our religion!

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

No it isn't. The same way social indoctrination isn't any abuse.

Calling it an abuse will be the perspective of Ego-individualist oriented societies while cultures who develops a deeper sense of belonging between individuals and their groups will act rising their children as member of their group, therefore with all their believes, traditions and behavior.

You think forcing beliefs upon children while not allowing them to critically examine or question these beliefs isn't abuse? There's a very important difference between indoctrination and education which is precisely that.

The meaning of indoctrination that was used was teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically, I suppose. So it only applies to adults, since children don't have critical thinking developed. But if people want to use it, it's necessary to apply it also to social indoctrination witch is much more forced and even violent. Operative conditioning it's total and often using punishment. Why don't you start by opposing that?

Pretending that children can critically examine beliefs it's an absurd. And trying to restrain parents to give the education needed so their children know who they are and the world where they live, it's a dictatorship.
So if any confusion between indoctrination and education is going on it's not made by me.
But of course this is not about children education but another attack to religion under the mask of children rights.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

I personally am an atheist, but I think it is absurd to teach kids about god one way or the other until they are old enough to actually understand the concept and repercussions of the idea of god. I think at around 12 I'd like to introduce any kid I have to several different religions and atheism and allow them to make their own decisions.



On the same note though, I don't know if it's right to shield children from religion when they are a child... if they wanted to go to church with a friend, I don't see a problem with that. I wouldn't really even care if my child was a Christian or Muslim or Hindu as long as they came to that conclusion with a sound and mature mind.

I agree, but I think the age of 8 is more appropriate.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Does anyone really believe that a kid can understand what god is and what god's existence means at the age of 5?

Of course not.
Hell, they are just understanding the concept of Santa Claus at that age....

Originally posted by parkerjm:

I was a Baptist up until 12-13

The horrors......
(Yes, I have a very low opinion of Baptists. Especially Southern Baptists. Thank goodness you got out when you did.)

Originally posted by Belfrager:

But of course this is not about children education but another attack to religion under the mask of children rights.

There is always someone, somewhere out to get religion, isn't it?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The meaning of indoctrination that was used was teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically, I suppose. So it only applies to adults, since children don't have critical thinking developed. But if people want to use it, it's necessary to apply it also to social indoctrination witch is much more forced and even violent. Operative conditioning it's total and often using punishment. Why don't you start by opposing that?



Pretending that children can critically examine beliefs it's an absurd. And trying to restrain parents to give the education needed so their children know who they are and the world where they live, it's a dictatorship.

So if any confusion between indoctrination and education is going on it's not made by me.

But of course this is not about children education but another attack to religion under the mask of children rights.

I said teach about ALL the religions. But of course it's an attack to your particular religion if they know about more than just yours.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Especially Southern Baptists.

Yeah, I think being brought up in a more extremist environment allowed me to break free more easily. Equal and opposite reaction?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Equal and opposite reaction?

Exactly.

On that note, the Baptist that I despise the most will be visiting the state today:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/blog/2518/could_fred_phelps_bring_tolerance_to_mississippi_community/

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Did you read anything I said? I said teach about ALL the religions. But of course it's an attack to your particular religion if they know about more than just yours.

Sorry but some cognitive dissonance it's going by.

Did I said something about my specific religion? Why are you talking about it if I'm referring religion, any religion? Why do you ask me if I've read what you said if I've exactly answered your precise question about allowing children to critically examine using for that the argument that it's something they can't do?

The problem here seems to be that you think that children knowing a lot of religions will make them more informed persons whilst I defend that a children must know first to where she belongs before being able to choose anything. Children shouldn't be educated to become citizens of the world (a pompous name to designate just rootless people) but to become proud members of their family, country and other important groups.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Does anyone really believe that a kid can understand what god is and what god's existence means at the age of 5?

Or 55? What follows is a buckyball.

Here described as...

a spherical or ellipsoidal cage made up of covalently bonded carbon atoms. It is a fullerene, another allotrope (arrangement) of carbon, alongside graphite and diamond. C60 is the first fullerene discovered, and is known as buckminsterfullerene, after architect Buckminster Fuller's geodesic domes, which the molecule resembles. Fullerenes, including the buckyball, are extremely strong but relatively expensive to produce and purify. Another variety of fullerenes are nanotubes, which are similar to buckyballs but cylindrical rather than spherical.

Now, my guess is that buckyballs are much simpler than gods. Strangely, most folks apparently have much less trouble with gods than buckyballs. Does that tell us anything significant?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The problem here seems to be that you think that children knowing a lot of religions will make them more informed persons whilst I defend that a children must know first to where she belongs before being able to choose anything. Children shouldn't be educated to become citizens of the world (a pompous name to designate just rootless people) but to become proud members of their family, country and other important groups.

Who learns to belong (whatever that means) in school?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Children shouldn't be educated to become citizens of the world (a pompous name to designate just rootless people) but to become proud members of their family, country and other important groups.

One has to be careful about that open-ended approach to learning, I think. Nazis and Crusaders would have certainly agreed with your generalization. Perilous world, ours.

I bow to Jaygod.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I bow to Jaygod.

I would, too, but have a strained back ..... and a reluctant credulity gland.

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Also, I guess... the time they start school? If your kids are starting school at age 12, you are doing it wrong. I think most kids start at 4 or 5 these days.

ah that was the point...and that is what they can comprehend...not rainbow colored families without knowing the true definition of cornhoxe. Get it now?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

(Yes, I have a very low opinion of Baptists. Especially Southern Baptists

There is definitely a disease in the southern part of US. After years of observing this phenomenon I have concluded it is a fungus.. It is very contagious and has invaded, in fact, some of institutions of higher learning. The first symptoms are a very distinct slurring of words. Sometimes referred to by many as a drawl

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Who learns to belong (whatever that means) in school?

Everybody.
School (and parents) teaches neutral things as reading and arithmetics, and non neutral knowledge as geography and history. I'm using neutral at the sense of developing communion links or not.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

One has to be careful about that open-ended approach to learning, I think. Nazis and Crusaders would have certainly agreed with your generalization. Perilous world, ours.

I don't know why. A children doesn't have any way to grow up without apprehending the traces of the society to where she belongs. Nazis and Crusaders would be so happy with my words as any other society.
Every society has to transmit their system of values to the next generations, not others systems of values.
An informational society that the only thing that does to future generations it's informing them about the options they have it's not anymore a society but a suicidal information post.

You're going to have a job and a half building prisons to hold all the abusers, don't you think?

Parents have been taking their children to church on Sunday mornings almost since the foundation of the Church. Go back a bit, and you find Jewish parents taking their children to Synagogue for a whole lot longer than that. In fact, it's part of the first five books that we're supposed to train up our children to worship our God according to all that is written. So, better build those prison really big. There's a whole lot of us "abusers" and you haven't got near enough room for all of us.

Prisons. Always prisons. So American.

Are you positing that it's European to let child abusers run free?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by parkerjm:

I personally am an atheist, but I think it is absurd to teach kids about god one way or the other until they are old enough to actually understand the concept and repercussions of the idea of god. I think at around 12 I'd like to introduce any kid I have to several different religions and atheism and allow them to make their own decisions.

On the same note though, I don't know if it's right to shield children from religion when they are a child... if they wanted to go to church with a friend, I don't see a problem with that. I wouldn't really even care if my child was a Christian or Muslim or Hindu as long as they came to that conclusion with a sound and mature mind.

I agree, but I think the age of 8 is more appropriate.

Depends on the child I guess, whenever they're able to think for themselves.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Does anyone really believe that a kid can understand what god is and what god's existence means at the age of 5?

Of course not.
Hell, they are just understanding the concept of Santa Claus at that age....

That's why they try to get'em early.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

But of course this is not about children education but another attack to religion under the mask of children rights.

There is always someone, somewhere out to get religion, isn't it?

Especially catholicism. Catholics are practically an endangered species. If we're not careful the vatican will disappear in a puff of frankincense any day now.

I don't see any problem with allowing parents to teach their religion to their kids. It is, however, a shame that no religion has the courage to let their children developing critical thinking skills first. We all know precisely why.

What I really object to is the interference in public education. Some want to shield their kids from sex classes, others from evolution and, if you've been following the Texas State Education board debacle, the very history of the nation. Why? What are they afraid of?

Originally posted by Ward:

What I really object to is the interference in public education. Some want to shield their kids from sex classes, others from evolution and, if you've been following the Texas State Education board debacle, the very history of the nation. Why? What are they afraid of?

Precisely.

Originally posted by Ward:

if you've been following the Texas State Education board debacle, the very history of the nation

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10141121.stm

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Some want to shield their kids from sex classes,

The problem is the curriculum, or lack there of, at a early age before they can make their own judgment.,as you all have been harping on ..Teach them what its like to be cornhxled and then you have my blessing otherwise you are full of xxxx. When they are old enough to get the whole story OK. But you all want to brain wash the little tykes...

Originally posted by Macallan:

Especially catholicism. Catholics are practically an endangered species

You wish....

Originally posted by Denny77:

The problem is the curriculum, or lack there of, at a early age before they can make their own judgment.,as you all have been harping on ..Teach them what its like to be cornhxled and then you have my blessing otherwise you are full of xxxx. When they are old enough to get the whole story OK. But you all want to brain wash the little tykes... " width="27" height="17">

Brainwash them with what? The truth? That if a boy and a girl have unprotected sex, there is a significant possibility that pregnancy could occur, that one partner could pass on STDs? Or how condoms can reduce these risks significantly? Frankly, this information is essential at the age where experience is low and urges run rampage. Religion has nothing on the evolutionarily tuned hormones of a 14 year.

that's why they invented the depo shot. i myself would love to homeschool my children and then there is a less of a chance for them to go out on their own...not saying they wont, but then you'd be in control. talking about sex and talking about bad touching are two different things, and i do know a few that get upset even when the schools talk about bad touching...talk about being over protective!

Originally posted by Frenzie:

to belong (whatever that means)

DEFINITION: to behave in a way so that you don't get your ass kicked.

Originally posted by Ward:

Brainwash them with what? The truth? That if a boy and a girl have unprotected sex, there is a significant possibility that pregnancy could occur, that one partner could pass on STDs? Or how condoms can reduce these risks significantly? Frankly, this information is essential at the age where experience is low and urges run rampage. Religion has nothing on the evolutionarily tuned hormones of a 14 year.

You didn't read, I am not against any, and I mean any,well supported teaching in schools. But it must be at a age appropriate, You must tell the complete known truth, not pick and choose as it is obvious to me,many on this board have been taught. maybe "old Jaybro" a old teacher, can weigh in on this.

Originally posted by NoobSaibot:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

to belong (whatever that means)

DEFINITION: to behave in a way so that you don't get your ass kicked.

Pretend to fit in where you really don't. Pretend you're one of them ( and fail ).

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by Ward:

Brainwash them with what? The truth? That if a boy and a girl have unprotected sex, there is a significant possibility that pregnancy could occur, that one partner could pass on STDs? Or how condoms can reduce these risks significantly? Frankly, this information is essential at the age where experience is low and urges run rampage. Religion has nothing on the evolutionarily tuned hormones of a 14 year.

You didn't read, I am not against any, and I mean any,well supported teaching in schools. But it must be at a age appropriate, You must tell the complete known truth, not pick and choose as it is obvious to me,many on this board have been taught. maybe "old Jaybro" a old teacher, can weigh in on this.

The only pick and choose, hiding the truth games going on here is from the religious right. What precisely is the problem with what we've been taught?

Moderator edit: This comment was removed for breaching our terms of service.

Originally posted by Denny77:

In some States kids have books which show same sex partners and how beautiful it is..Horsecrap. These kids grow up thinking it is a legitimate life style. You can argue effectively that it is for homosexuals.. But The kids should know what it entails physically, biologically and only when they are old enough to comprehend. It is not a choice life style. It is a deviant lifestyle. Now the homo left is using peoples belief in civil rights and tolerance to propagate their thoughts that it is normal...Well pal it isn't.



You know they are answering questions and getting the tried and true leftest agenda.. It is time to get politics out of Kindergarten. What kind of freaks will the human race be in 100 years. I'll tell you ,one,that every homo loving ass wants.



Edit: If I am more specific I will be kicked off this board

for answering your dam question.

They probably said the same thing about interracial couples not too long ago, and accepting black people as human many years before that.

Damn the left and their brainwashing!!

Well at least your last line there is right!

Originally posted by Denny77:

In some States kids have books which show same sex partners and how beautiful it is..Horsecrap. These kids grow up thinking it is a legitimate life style.

There is nothing wrong with it. If they can find a bit of happiness, it's a great lifestyle. Who are they hurting? Not me. The only problem here is your homophobia which I shall advise that you GET OVER IT. Grow up. Join the 21st century. Realise that you're not gay and of no interest to them. You're not going to be bummed in the middle of the night. They're not going to get you while you go to the loo.

Unless you secretly want them to? Some of the most vociferous opponents to homosexuality are actually gay!

Originally posted by Denny77:

You can argue effectively that it is for homosexuals.. But The kids should know what it entails physically, biologically and only when they are old enough to comprehend.

That goes without saying for ALL sexual relationships. Nobody here has yet disagreed on the point you keep repeating.

Originally posted by Denny77:

It is not a choice life style. It is a deviant lifestyle. Now the homo left is using peoples belief in civil rights and tolerance to propagate their thoughts that it is normal...Well pal it isn't.

Lifestyle or not, coded into the genes from birth or not, it has no impact on your lifestyle. It has no effect on heterosexual relationships. The presence of homosexuality angers you. Why? What are you afraid of? As parkerjm pointed out, your bleating is very similar to the opponents to inter-racial marriages.

Originally posted by Denny77:

What kind of freaks will the human race be in 100 years. I'll tell you ,one,that every homo loving ass wants.

Equality? Don't see a problem, but then again, I'm not a homophobe.

Originally posted by Denny77:

What kind of freaks will the human race be in 100 years. I'll tell you ,one,that every homo loving ass wants.

Oh noez, we're all going to catch the gay!

Originally posted by Ward:

That goes without saying for ALL sexual relationships. Nobody here has yet disagreed on the point you keep repeating.

That is not what is happening...What is happening is behavior management.. If you are as Queer as they come a person a, real person, would deplore that.

and that is why I keep repeating. This the education we are getting.

Originally posted by Redem:

Oh noez, we're all going to catch the gay!

Some evidently are inflicted.

Originally posted by Denny77:

That is not what is happening...What is happening is behavior management.. If you are as Queer as they come a person a, real person, would deplore that.

Why?

Again, what are you afraid of? Why do you hate homosexuals so much? Your bigotry is not welcome.

Originally posted by Denny77:

and that is why I keep repeating. This the education we are getting.

That homosexuals aren't to be feared, that they're just people like any other and deserve the same consideration and rights?

I see nothing wrong with that.

The only problem here is you.

Moderator edit: This comment was removed for breaching our terms of service.

Oh please.

You've worked in an anti-homosexual rant in just about every topic where you've been given half a chance. We know what you are. It's just surprising you've not been banned yet.

Originally posted by Denny77:

You sir are a perfect example of the type of brainwashed people

Because I see no need to denigrate a group that has done no harm to me or anyone around me? Because I cannot find any reason why their lifestyle somehow impacts mine?

Originally posted by Denny77:

You answer nothing

I've just scanned your posts after my first post in this thread. You've not posted any questions, just narrow minded, intolerant rants.

Originally posted by Ward:

Because I cannot find any reason why their lifestyle somehow impacts mine?

I'll probably notice some of this.

Originally posted by Ward:

You've not posted any questions

I don't know if that is true or not...Thinking about it i have failed to communicate how dismayed I am at the attack on religious indoctrination.. My rant ....was not on Homos but on the behavior management of a certain political elite who fail to see the danger of indoctrinating wee ones on the glorious and wonderful world of Queers.

Doggone it if I don't have to side with Ward. I hate it when that happens.

Let's try to get this thread back on track. It wasn't about homosexuals and whether we should love or hate or despise or deplore or get used to it or whatever, it's about whether religious indoctrination---- which I would take to include taking your children to church and/or Sunday School, and teaching your children about your God, constitutes child abuse. I submit that it is not, that in fact it's a far greater abuse if you DON'T teach them to seek God and to know of Him and about Him. I suppose a case could be made that it's abusive to teach children to believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and all the rest of that stuff, but for those of us who take God seriously, it's very important that we teach our children about our God. If that constitutes abuse in your minds, then you'd better begin constructing places to put all of us "abusers" because we ARE going to keep on doing it.

i agree it's not abuse to send your child to church. the parents know what's best, and when the child grows up, (s)he can do what he wants and what he thinks is best for him. but i think that the simple fact of teaching your child something you learned (as long as it does not include something major serious like telling your three year old to smoke) it's fine. the children will find their own path when they get older.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Religion is about something external, something not necessary for the group to exist comfortably. Traditions exist independently of faith.

I disagree johnnysaucepn. Religion it's not strictly necessary for non religious communities but it's an huge force of internal solidarity and even resistance at other communities. It's not the only social cement but it's one of the most important. Therefore generations include it as a fundamental aspect to pass to newer generations (and to the despair of anti religion lobbies).

Societies where religion it's an important aspect starts using religious themes or images intimately connected with the basic moral concepts of right and wrong when raising their children but they also use other sources as popular literature and day-to-day situations. This mix differs immensely from family to family and also at different social levels and even at different regions of the same country.
This can't ever be seen as any kind of indoctrination or children abuse, I think.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

i agree it's not abuse to send your child to church. the parents know what's best, and when the child grows up, (s)he can do what he wants and what he thinks is best for him. but i think that the simple fact of teaching your child something you learned (as long as it does not include something major serious like telling your three year old to smoke) it's fine. the children will find their own path when they get older.

This brought to mind an old Clark Webber bit I heard every Friday as he was signing off his show.

"Don't send your children to Sunday School--- you take them." It's that important, and this is one place where "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work well. When the children grow older, they will pick up on the fact that you didn't believe in this any more than you did the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and all the rest of it and they will file God in the same bin that they put all the other "invisible friends" from childhood.

Originally posted by Ward:

Because I cannot find any reason why their lifestyle somehow impacts mine?

Lifestyle impact? Surely, it can't come down to that...at least I hope not. Society doesn't make allowances for anybody's lifestyle. It might well impact the lifestyle of other posters here and elsewhere in our big world. What then?

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by TogaOga:

i agree it's not abuse to send your child to church. the parents know what's best, and when the child grows up, (s)he can do what he wants and what he thinks is best for him. but i think that the simple fact of teaching your child something you learned (as long as it does not include something major serious like telling your three year old to smoke) it's fine. the children will find their own path when they get older.

This brought to mind an old Clark Webber bit I heard every Friday as he was signing off his show.

"Don't send your children to Sunday School--- you take them." It's that important, and this is one place where "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work well. When the children grow older, they will pick up on the fact that you didn't believe in this any more than you did the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and all the rest of it and they will file God in the same bin that they put all the other "invisible friends" from childhood.

i'm sorry, that's not what i ws getting at. i was trying to say that even though you yourself would bring your child and tell them that the most important thing in life is God. unfortunately a lot of ppl will tell your child different. i have a cousin-in-law that is a very angry teen, and he has put off God and is now trying to tell my children that He will never do anything good for you and here i am trying to tell my children that he is just mad and that no matter what you say or do, this child will never see the light. i'm not putting anybody down that does not believe, but this boy believes, but has so much hate, that he is trying to turn the girls on Him. i believe in God, and the girls do too, but peer presure...i guess?

Originally posted by Ward:

I've just scanned your posts after my first post in this thread. You've not posted any questions, just narrow minded, intolerant rants.

Which is why long ago I used the block feature. It's quite handy.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

i believe in God, and the girls do too

Why?

It's been mentioned before in this thread that teaching and indoctrination are different. By all means, teach, but don't indoctrinate, right?

Originally posted by parkerjm:

It's been mentioned before in this thread that teaching and indoctrination are different. By all means, teach, but don't indoctrinate, right?

I wonder who draws that fine line.

The leftist conspirators.

@dawg
why? it has something to do with my upbringing. if you dont believe in God, what do you have? if not on this earth, then where? i'm not narrow minded, i'm not simple....it's a complex world, and the girls have to learn for themselves...

Originally posted by parkerjm:

The leftist conspirators.

Oh, thedawgfan and his crew! I get it now.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by TogaOga:

i believe in God, and the girls do too

Why?

Because she told them to from earliest childhood on. Probably just like her parents did to her.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by parkerjm:

It's been mentioned before in this thread that teaching and indoctrination are different. By all means, teach, but don't indoctrinate, right?

I wonder who draws that fine line.

Easy. If you agree with the nonsense it's teaching, if you don't it's indoctrination.

Moderator warning:

Derogatory comments about homosexuals will be considered abuse on the same level as racist remarks.

Derogatory comments about homosexuals and racist remarks are strictly against the forum rules.

(Please do not respond to this message.)

Originally posted by TogaOga:

if you dont believe in God, what do you have?

Less delusional baggage. Why on earth would I bother with a hypothetical being who's supposed 'actions' are indistinguishable from random events?

Originally posted by TogaOga:

if not on this earth, then where?

What makes you think there is anything else and how do you think you get there?

Originally posted by Superfluid:

Just watch the documentary Jesus Camp.

Thanks for that, it's quite a documentary; a very nice one, at that. It is pretty sad the amount that of brainwashing that goes on here.

I'm all for making clean distinctions between the average tax-paying Christian, one with bills and skin problems, and the rare Christian who has fallen off the barstool...sorta like...
this one.
It's an oldie but goodie.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by TogaOga:

if you dont believe in God, what do you have?

Less delusional baggage. Why on earth would I bother with a hypothetical being who's supposed 'actions' are indistinguishable from random events?

Originally posted by TogaOga:

if not on this earth, then where?

What makes you think there is anything else and how do you think you get there?

because this is what i was taught from early childhood, and this is what my grandma (who raised me) was taught from her early childhood...and so on...
and so i teach my children what you would call "nonsense" ... it's in my genes, and i would rather have them love and honour whom I believe created us.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I'm all for making clean distinctions between the average tax-paying Christian, one with bills and skin problems, and the rare Christian who has fallen off the barstool...sorta like...
this one.
It's an oldie but goodie.

that is one sick woman

I suppose that "Delusional baggage" and "Indoctrination" are, like beauty, in the eyes of the beer holder.

I troubled myself to look up "Indoctrination" and I find that on some level, every last one of us who have ever had anything to do with raising and instructing children have been "guilty" of indoctrinating children according to whatever the beliefs are that the adult holds. Yep, you atheists do it, too, only you call your version "education" and our version "indoctrination" with all the bad vibes you can conjure up for the term. Of course the vice is versa, when we of the Abrahamic faiths talk of these respective roles we're educating our children and you're indoctrinating them.

So, that makes me wonder: If religious indoctrination is found to be child abuse, and if--- as some folk like me would maintain-- atheism and secular humanism are themselves forms of religion, what exactly should be done with a whole world full of abusers????? Everybody and his brother has been "guilty" of "indoctrinating" children according to their beliefs, so that means that each and every last one of us belongs behind bars as an abuser.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I suppose that "Delusional baggage" and "Indoctrination" are, like beauty, in the eyes of the beer holder.

Obviously. I have no use for any belief in any sort of god, of course that doesn't mean nobody does.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

So, that makes me wonder: If religious indoctrination is found to be child abuse, and if--- as some folk like me would maintain-- atheism and secular humanism are themselves forms of religion, what exactly should be done with a whole world full of abusers????? Everybody and his brother has been "guilty" of "indoctrinating" children according to their beliefs, so that means that each and every last one of us belongs behind bars as an abuser.

Does something bad ( or good, which one it is doesn't really matter for the argument ) cease to be bad ( or good ) when everyone does it?
Some indoctrination is necessary - I want my child to get the hell off the road when I tell her to instead of stopping, thinking about it for a minute or two, and being hit by a car. I'm sure you will make a similar argument about spoon feeding christianity to small children.

It is well enough know that I have little time for queers any more than I have say for Socialists, Communists, Zionists, etc. We now have laws to specifically "protect" them for example. Why this direction came was due to the leftist idea of all the same. However it is kind of contradicted when you specify laws for particular groups? No-one should go about wanting to do harm to them of course that is just crass but they were perfectly protected under general laws. We are now getting to a stage much thanks to "New" Labour where we are getting a situation of compartments in the law. At the rate we are going there will be a law for just about everything. This was New Labour thinking. Mention a difficulty and they produced a law for it which does not handle the thing at all.

Someone earlier said that such people do not impinge on them but they do. Even someone who didn't like the lifestyle has to walk on egg shells in case some PC plod of a policeman or similar hounds you. This is special treatment and we had examples of how quick the "offended" take up the cudgels. Even that man Thatchell that I cannot even bear to watch has said that there is too much swinging the other way and that the homo corner is being out of balance as soon as anyone makes even a mild criticism. When their leading spokesman condemns you know something is badly wrong in the whole thing. As for the original thread (!), we can accuse just about any philosophy, religion or even Atheism of indoctrination for that point if we are going to be scrupulously balanced?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It is well enough know that I have little time for queers any more than I have say for Socialists, Communists, Zionists, etc. We now have laws to specifically "protect" them for example.

Without people like you that wouldn't be necessary.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

@dawg

why? it has something to do with my upbringing.

Is that right? Well, I also was brought up a christian in a very christian family, but I was able to do something no one else in my family has seemingly been able to do: think critically.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

if you dont believe in God, what do you have?

Many things. I have family, friends, (though not at the moment, girlfriend), my pets, liberty, land to hunt and fish on, a vehicle, beer, the Oxford Square, one of the best colleges in the nation (personal opinion ), etc.
I don't need a hypocritical, sadistical mad-deity in the sky to believe in.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

i'm not simple....it's a complex world, and the girls have to learn for themselves...

I never accused you of being simple.

If the girls have to learn for themselves, let them try going without old Yahweh (God to you) for a week. Don't force them to go to church. See how they respond.

(I have no idea how old they are, but if they are in their teens, this is perfectly fine for them.)

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by TogaOga:

@dawg

why? it has something to do with my upbringing.

Is that right? Well, I also was brought up a christian in a very christian family, but I was able to do something no one else in my family has seemingly been able to do: think critically.

This is where you're sadly mistaken - you weren't strong enough to withstand satan and now he got you. Let's all pray for your soul.
( we need a raving looney fire & brimstone smiley )

Originally posted by Macallan:

This is where you're sadly mistaken - you weren't strong enough to withstand satan and now he got you.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Let's all pray for your soul.

A lot of good that will do.

Originally posted by Macallan:

( we need a raving looney fire & brimstone smiley )

Methinks a Fred Phelps smiley would do the trick.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by TogaOga:

i'm not simple....it's a complex world, and the girls have to learn for themselves...

I never accused you of being simple.

If the girls have to learn for themselves, let them try going without old Yahweh (God to you) for a week. Don't force them to go to church. See how they respond.

(I have no idea how old they are, but if they are in their teens, this is perfectly fine for them.)

they range from 3 yrs to nine yrs, and i have 4. i dont force them, they ask to go because of the fun that they have. i use to be a teen, so i know how hard it is to keep my mind on the Lord while trying to be a normal teen. but now that i am older and have kids of my own, i tell them that they do have a choice. right now they are in that stage of wanting to go to sunday school. they love it there.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

they range from 3 yrs to nine yrs, and i have 4.

Ah, I see. Please disregard my suggestion.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

i dont force them, they ask to go because of the fun that they have.

*nods*

Originally posted by TogaOga:

right now they are in that stage of wanting to go to sunday school. they love it there.

In that case, as The Beatles so rightly put it:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I disagree johnnysaucepn. Religion it's not strictly necessary for non religious communities but it's an huge force of internal solidarity and even resistance at other communities. It's not the only social cement but it's one of the most important. Therefore generations include it as a fundamental aspect to pass to newer generations (and to the despair of anti religion lobbies).

Beating a horse with a stick, or clipping a bird's wings, or binding a woman's feet, or child servitude are also forces of internal solidarity. Some of the more abusive and restrictive regimes are also the most tightly bound. And we all know about the behaviour patterns of abused wives, or those affected by Stockholm syndrome.

What I'm saying is that having a close-bound group in society does not mean that the methods used to achieve it are not abusive.

The point is that the religion itself is not the social cement.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

What I'm saying is that having a close-bound group in society does not mean that the methods used to achieve it are not abusive.

You mean having a close-bound group in society means that the methods used to achieve it are abusive? I can think of quote a number of groups that are close-bound.

I don't think he's saying anything other than that achieving a closely-bound group doesn't justify abuse in his eyes (nor in mine).

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

What I'm saying is that having a close-bound group in society does not mean that the methods used to achieve it are not abusive.

Of course not.
What I said it's the methods used by generations to pass religious aspects to the newer generations aren't more abusive then the system used to socialize children at every societies.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

The point is that the religion itself is not the social cement.

I'm not seeing the logic between the premises and the conclusion.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I don't think he's saying anything other than that achieving a closely-bound group doesn't justify abuse in his eyes (nor in mine).

What I am really questioning are the examples - in which close-bound group are such practices found? Abuse is certainly not justified, but aren't these examples an insult against the civilisation, if they are meant to refer to the present time, or are they simply misplaced?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Beating a horse with a stick, or clipping a bird's wings, or binding a woman's feet, or child servitude are also forces of internal solidarity.

Maybe call it "infernal solidarity".

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

What I'm saying is that having a close-bound group in society does not mean that the methods used to achieve it are not abusive.

You mean having a close-bound group in society means that the methods used to achieve it are abusive? I can think of quote a number of groups that are close-bound.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that a dictator can create a closely-bound community just as well, if not better, than a hippy. That doesn't mean that all close societies are dictatorial. In particularly, it suggests that having a close-knit group does not always justify the means.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

they range from 3 yrs to nine yrs, and i have 4. i dont force them, they ask to go because of the fun that they have. i use to be a teen, so i know how hard it is to keep my mind on the Lord while trying to be a normal teen. but now that i am older and have kids of my own, i tell them that they do have a choice. right now they are in that stage of wanting to go to sunday school. they love it there.

I'm in the same boat, my pre teen daughter is so into church she reminds me the night before. I don't feel it's abuse at all if they are taught about having faith love and hope

Originally posted by Nancci:

I'm in the same boat, my pre teen daughter is so into church she reminds me the night before. I don't feel it's abuse at all if they are taught about having faith love and hope

Faith, hope and charity are not specific to religion.

However, only religion teaches children that they'll be tortured in agony eternally by a goat-headed man for being who they were born to be. Or for that matter, for not doing whatever the church tells them to.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Nancci:

I'm in the same boat, my pre teen daughter is so into church she reminds me the night before. I don't feel it's abuse at all if they are taught about having faith love and hope

Faith, hope and charity are not specific to religion.

However, only religion teaches children that they'll be tortured in agony eternally by a goat-headed man for being who they were born to be. Or for that matter, for not doing whatever the church tells them to.

Or for going to the wrong church.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Or for going to the wrong church.

Damn, you beat me to the punch on posting that.

Macallan and the dawgfan nice work! Thanks

Originally posted by Nancci:

Originally posted by TogaOga:

they range from 3 yrs to nine yrs, and i have 4. i dont force them, they ask to go because of the fun that they have. i use to be a teen, so i know how hard it is to keep my mind on the Lord while trying to be a normal teen. but now that i am older and have kids of my own, i tell them that they do have a choice. right now they are in that stage of wanting to go to sunday school. they love it there.

I'm in the same boat, my pre teen daughter is so into church she reminds me the night before. I don't feel it's abuse at all if they are taught about having faith love and hope

they have been asking to go back to church for the longest time, but i have to find me a church where i am not scared to go (social anxiety)

Forcing someone to believe in something they can barely understand and then punishing them for not believing in it is soul destroying. In my honest opinion thats what religious indoctrination is

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

Forcing someone to believe in something they can barely understand and then punishing them for not believing in it is soul destroying. In my honest opinion thats what religious indoctrination is

and thats why i wont force my girls to go. if they want to stay home, they will

Originally posted by Contaminator:

Is religious indoctrination child abuse?

Why limit it to religious indoctrination? What about social and political indoctrination? what about indoctrination of adults?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

How do you distinguish teaching from indoctrination?

Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned

Not to allow critical thinking in any form of knowledge transfer, be it religious, social or political is abusive, be the pupil a child or an adult.

I agree with you Grysmn it is abusive at the very least it will cause psychological damage and their social abilities are likely to be affected

Originally posted by grysmn:

Not to allow critical thinking in any form of knowledge transfer, be it religious, social or political is abusive, be the pupil a child or an adult.

It's hard to imagine how one could disallow critical thinking. Murder is illegal but it happens all the time. What goes on in the privacy of one's own mind is hardly subject to monitoring. Discussion, however, is subject to disapproval in some arenas.

Societies need to build a common heritage.
Children belongs to their societies, or better saying, without belonging to their society they only can vegetate.
There was a time when common sense was an useful measure to decide children's involvement at adult things. Now, thanks to modern pedagogy, people raise children to become lost and pathetic persons.

Is religious indoctrination child abuse? Opinions please. Is religious indoctrination child abuse? No Only if it involves pedophile priests Yes :mass wine: :cracker:

Who the fuvk are you to slag off my religion. You wouldn't talk about Islam like that.
I'll have some crackers and wine when i rip the back end out of your mum.

Originally posted by TogaOga:

Originally posted by Nancci:

Originally posted by TogaOga:

they range from 3 yrs to nine yrs, and i have 4. i dont force them, they ask to go because of the fun that they have. i use to be a teen, so i know how hard it is to keep my mind on the Lord while trying to be a normal teen. but now that i am older and have kids of my own, i tell them that they do have a choice. right now they are in that stage of wanting to go to sunday school. they love it there.

I'm in the same boat, my pre teen daughter is so into church she reminds me the night before. I don't feel it's abuse at all if they are taught about having faith love and hope

they have been asking to go back to church for the longest time, but i have to find me a church where i am not scared to go (social anxiety)

Should get out more .

Originally posted by Juggalo1:

Should get out more .

do you not understand "social anxiety"?? i will have an anxiety attack! not a good thing in front of ppl to have

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

Is religious indoctrination child abuse? Opinions please. Is religious indoctrination child abuse? No Only if it involves pedophile priests Yes :mass wine: :cracker:

Who the fuvk are you to slag off my religion. You wouldn't talk about Islam like that.
I'll have some crackers and wine when i rip the back end out of your mum.

Who says there are no pedophile priests in Islam? Muhammed founded the religion and he was without a doubt a pedophile priest.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Now, thanks to modern pedagogy, people raise children to become lost and pathetic persons.

I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify?

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

fuvk

How is that pronounced?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Muhammed founded the religion and he was without a doubt a pedophile priest.

Doesn't it come down to who is doing the doubting? This is a very old and convoluted history, not something that popped up on Facebook last year.

well lets get a hold of ourselves

*coughs*
ok any type of indoctrination gives the child some sort of base(foundation if you may) to make decisions. They have free will just like any other living being does on this Planet. that being said you have to give your child some sort of exposure to the world otherwise you have a very Dependant child how makes decisions based on the decisions of others rather than the facts or free will. I assume most atheists here didn't like the fact of religion due to having to believe in a GOD thats not there. thats fine i accept that. they choose the method on their own free will and didn't jump the band wagon. a foundation of some sort for kids is good however forcing your belief system on to them is wrong and will result in bad.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Who says there are no pedophile priests in Islam? Muhammed founded the religion and he was without a doubt a pedophile priest.

Then i might as well call Jesus a pedophile then.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Now, thanks to modern pedagogy, people raise children to become lost and pathetic persons.

I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify?

People in some non-Western societies tend to raise their children to fight, while we tend to raise our children to talk about their issues. If children were just to hit each other then whoever could hit the hardest would win without ever resolving anything. To me that's what that sounds like. I'll take the civilized version any day.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Muhammed founded the religion and he was without a doubt a pedophile priest.

Doesn't it come down to who is doing the doubting? This is a very old and convoluted history, not something that popped up on Facebook last year.

That depends a bit on whether you're referring to Muhammad the historical person or Muhammad the semi-mythical figure. Due to the nature of discourse regarding the fellow I may be referring more to the latter than to the former (at least regarding the without a doubt part), though if I were a Muslim trying to talk Muhammad up I certainly wouldn't invent some child-bride.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Who says there are no pedophile priests in Islam? Muhammed founded the religion and he was without a doubt a pedophile priest.

Then i might as well call Jesus a pedophile then.

I don't recall any of the contradictory gospels nor the apocrypha claiming Jesus was a pedophile or even had sex, so could you clarify that?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Muhammed founded the religion and he was without a doubt a pedophile priest.

As is common with the Abrahamic religions, two of the three religions share a trait.
Ever heard the song "Jesus Loves the Little Children"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-113p6R_nc

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Ever heard the song "Jesus Loves the Little Children"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-113p6R_nc

I have now.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Now, thanks to modern pedagogy, people raise children to become lost and pathetic persons.

I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify?

If you insist..
My point was:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Societies need to build a common heritage.
Children belongs to their societies, or better saying, without belonging to their society they only can vegetate.

As you know, modern pedagogics doesn't reinforce this point but rather the "creativity" aspects, the "learning as an enjoyable game where children learns with adults and adults learn with children" at some kind of permanent ludic activity.

Fundamental aspects that are not funny and enjoyable ceased to be transmitted to children. Children doesn't attend to funerals, because it's to traumatic for them, they can't make a cemetery their playground. Children automatically passes each year at school because, if don't, that will be unfair to them, and so on.
This is modern pedagogy, a theme very much at discussing here.

The result are non functional adults.
With this kind of pedagogy how a society can build a common heritage? Instead of teaching children, they "talk" with them, as Frenzie says.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That depends a bit on whether you're referring to Muhammad the historical person or Muhammad the semi-mythical figure. Due to the nature of discourse regarding the fellow I may be referring more to the latter than to the former (at least regarding the without a doubt part), though if I were a Muslim trying to talk Muhammad up I certainly wouldn't invent some child-bride.

We don't know much about the man given the paucity of reliable information, so taking a low age of the girl one might argue pedophilia. Arguing for an older age would make him far less than unusual for the time.

For later periods?

Bianca of Savoy, Duchess of Milan was married aged 13 yo (1350), and aged 14 yo when she gave birth to her eldest son, Giangaleazzo (1351).
Theodora Comnena was aged 13 yo when she was married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem (1158).
Agnes of France was 12 yo when, widowed, she was married to Andronicus Comnenus, Byzantine Emperor (1182).
St Elizabeth of Portugal was aged 12 yo when she was married to King Denis of Portugal and gave birth to three children shortly thereafter.
Caterina Sforza was betrothed aged 9 yo, married aged 14 yo, and gave birth aged 15 yo.
Lucrezia Borgia was married to her first husband aged 13 yo and bore a son within a few years.

Commoners in the Medieval period married at an older age, around about 22.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Fundamental aspects that are not funny and enjoyable ceased to be transmitted to children. Children doesn't attend to funerals, because it's to traumatic for them, they can't make a cemetery their playground. Children automatically passes each year at school because, if don't, that will be unfair to them, and so on.
This is modern pedagogy, a theme very much at discussing here.

Maybe it's different in Portugal, but that's bollocks. Most kids do tend to pass each year in elementary school because it isn't really subdivided into different difficulty levels yet, like later on.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

We don't know much about the man given the paucity of reliable information, so taking a low age of the girl one might argue pedophilia. Arguing for an older age would make him far less than unusual for the time.

Married at 6, consummated at 9.

Regarding the ones you quoted, I would argue that largely depends on the girl in question. There can be great individual differences in both physical and mental maturity. The latter ought to be more important than the former, but the former is presumably the most relevant regarding whether someone is a pedophile or not if that includes sexual attraction to to women who don't yet have an adult body. Setting a specific age of consent is just a way to make things easy, although you read about statutory rape making things harder on people all the time. But let's not forget that Muhammad was 54 years old, not 16 or some such.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

As you know, modern pedagogics doesn't reinforce this point but rather the "creativity" aspects, the "learning as an enjoyable game where children learns with adults and adults learn with children" at some kind of permanent ludic activity.

Hmmm, not really. It emphasises that the dry, beat-the-information-into-their-heads approach of rote learning is not only inefficient in getting knowledge into heads, it also fails to instil the ability to think critically about what is being taught.

Kids are just as functional as they always were - it's just that the non-functional ones no longer get sent to workhouses or down mines or into prison, they just put them on reality TV shows instead.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

As you know, modern pedagogics doesn't reinforce this point but rather the "creativity" aspects, the "learning as an enjoyable game where children learns with adults and adults learn with children" at some kind of permanent ludic activity.

The result are non functional adults.
With this kind of pedagogy how a society can build a common heritage? Instead of teaching children, they "talk" with them, as Frenzie says.

Learning is enjoyable. I simply don't understand "adults learn with children." What does that mean? And how do you get from "permanent ludic activity" to non-functional adults? Whatever is a non-functional adult in a common sense? I've seen non-functional individuals, but a whole society of them? I must be non-functional.

Religious indoctrination, however, does tend toward non-functionality. Thinking and assessing are rarely elements in religious "education". How does one rationally bring a child aboard a religious vessel?

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man," is attributed to Francis Xavier, not a modern teacher. Anybody who attended a school taught by nuns decades ago will not fear recent teaching methods.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The result are non functional adults.
With this kind of pedagogy how a society can build a common heritage? Instead of teaching children, they "talk" with them, as Frenzie says.

Hm? I said they teach kids to talk to each other to work out their problems, rather than to fight about it. Kind of like how we have the EU instead of WW3. But there is no reason adults shouldn't rationally justify the things they do.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Learning is enjoyable. I simply don't understand "adults learn with children." What does that mean?

Relativism. Everything it's just "an opinion" right or wrong, so your grand children arguments are so valuable as yours. Capppice?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

And how do you get from "permanent ludic activity" to non-functional adults? Whatever is a non-functional adult in a common sense? I've seen non-functional individuals, but a whole society of them? I must be non-functional.

When people are raised at relativism times, what do you think they become regarding to the society's need to build a common heritage?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Religious indoctrination, however,

There's no such thing as "religious indoctrination". Religion its based at Dogma.
I don't have to defend the mistakes of the thread's owner.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man," is attributed to Francis Xavier, not a modern teacher. Anybody who attended a school taught by nuns decades ago will not fear recent teaching methods.

Exactly. the problem it's that those who suffers from modern pedagogy, never had the chance to go to Nun's schools or knowing St Francis Xavier pedagogy.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

There's no such thing as "religious indoctrination".

Perhaps you should look into Catholicism's rebels?
One could argue about religious indoctrination Catholic-wise all day, but in certain Protestant denominations, religious indoctrination is obvious.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Relativism. Everything it's just "an opinion" right or wrong, so your grand children arguments are so valuable as yours. Capppice?

Whose mouth an argument comes from holds no difference regarding its validity. One would hope that an adult would be right more often than a child, but there is no guarantee that this is so.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

When people are raised at relativism times, what do you think they become regarding to the society's need to build a common heritage?

Most "common heritage" stuff blatantly ignores the truth. Just look at the nonsensical stuff they teach as history in the US (save for the academic level). That is excepting the kind of common heritage that speaks about all of mankind having a common heritage, which seeks to steer toward that which you oppose the most.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Most "common heritage" stuff blatantly ignores the truth.

Societies are complex organisms made with very different parts that have different perspectives about things. But, yet, a common heritage it's build up.
That means that "truth" it's not always the main value regarding human cohesion. You have a good example with so different things as fairy tales told to children, football or historical perspective. Emotional approach it's often the most important society's cement. It can't be under evaluated.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That is excepting the kind of common heritage that speaks about all of mankind having a common heritage, which seeks to steer toward that which you oppose the most.

I don't know if I'm fully understanding your words, do you think that mankind common heritage it's a matter of opinion? Mankind common heritage it's the result of an inner driven impulse witch doesn't have nothing "opinable". Humans just obey to it.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I don't know if I'm fully understanding your words, do you think that mankind common heritage it's a matter of opinion? Mankind common heritage it's the result of an inner driven impulse witch doesn't have nothing "opinable". Humans just obey to it.

Not sure what you're saying here. Cultural heritage is determined by the actions of individuals. Whether it's Christmas trees or attitudes towards marriage, they all come from the specific actions of an individual or a group.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Cultural heritage is determined by the actions of individuals. Whether it's Christmas trees or attitudes towards marriage, they all come from the specific actions of an individual or a group.

Yes, I agree regarding the final product. But I think that cultural heritage itself (developing Arts, Science, Traditions, Religions, etc) that it's common to Mankind (despite the differences that each society has) it's an human instinct. I've tried to point out the difference between the non-option appeal to create a Common Heritage and the many different aspects it can present.
It's fundamental that each society deeply believes that their final cultural product it's the right interpretation of the original common human impulse, regarding that society circumstances.
Relativism, as much as imposed uniformity, deeply destroys that believe.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Learning is enjoyable. I simply don't understand "adults learn with children." What does that mean?

Relativism. Everything it's just "an opinion" right or wrong, so your grand children arguments are so valuable as yours. Capppice?

No, I don't capiche. The world of absolutes, from which many of us have partially escaped, was the world where religious authorities were free to burn people for espousing that which was disallowed. My grand children's arguments are not as valuable as mine. Theirs are governed by an openness and ignorance that makes them susceptible to philosophies such as the one that grips your life.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

And how do you get from "permanent ludic activity" to non-functional adults? Whatever is a non-functional adult in a common sense? I've seen non-functional individuals, but a whole society of them? I must be non-functional.

When people are raised at relativism times, what do you think they become regarding to the society's need to build a common heritage?
I wish I spoke Portuguese so I could work my way through whatever you have in mind. I can say, however, that societies don't have needs, people do. And your needs aren't necessarily mine. Your need for some sort of intellectual conformity is absolutely antithetical to my needs.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Religious indoctrination, however,

There's no such thing as "religious indoctrination". Religion its based at Dogma.
I don't have to defend the mistakes of the thread's owner.
If there is religion, there is necessarily indoctrination. The two walk hand-in-hand.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

"Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man," is attributed to Francis Xavier, not a modern teacher. Anybody who attended a school taught by nuns decades ago will not fear recent teaching methods.

Exactly. the problem it's that those who suffers from modern pedagogy, never had the chance to go to Nun's schools or knowing St Francis Xavier pedagogy.[/quote]
Suffering such a fate has to be laid at the doorstep of Catholics and other fundamentalists, not the rest of us. Almost everybody has the option of learning about Xavier. Change is troublesome for those stubbornly rooted in the archaic past.

My apologies for the absurd formatting above. I promise to improve with the passage of time.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Cultural heritage is determined by the actions of individuals. Whether it's Christmas trees or attitudes towards marriage, they all come from the specific actions of an individual or a group.

Yes, I agree regarding the final product. But I think that cultural heritage itself (developing Arts, Science, Traditions, Religions, etc) that it's common to Mankind (despite the differences that each society has) it's an human instinct. I've tried to point out the difference between the non-option appeal to create a Common Heritage and the many different aspects it can present.
It's fundamental that each society deeply believes that their final cultural product it's the right interpretation of the original common human impulse, regarding that society circumstances.
Relativism, as much as imposed uniformity, deeply destroys that believe.

Okay, you're saying that the desire for a shared sense of culture has been important to us in the past, and should be preserved in the future? Fine, but that doesn't mean that the elements of that shared culture can't be discarded or rewritten. In fact, it's pretty much impossible for it not to, much as it's impossible to stop things from being added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

Originally posted by Belfrager:

It's fundamental that each society deeply believes that their final cultural product it's the right interpretation of the original common human impulse, regarding that society circumstances.

This is outrageously theoretical and fuzzy. What is Germany's "final cultural product"? And "original common human impulse"? The Aborigine's interpretation? Do you think that those folk considered their's as "the right interpretation"?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

That means that "truth" it's not always the main value regarding human cohesion. You have a good example with so different things as fairy tales told to children, football or historical perspective. Emotional approach it's often the most important society's cement. It can't be under evaluated.

There's a difference between fairy tales (which are clearly recognizable as fairy tales) and acting like Native Americans weren't massacred, agreements broken, etc. What is taught in history class ought to at least aspire to tell a story that's not pure fiction.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That is excepting the kind of common heritage that speaks about all of mankind having a common heritage, which seeks to steer toward that which you oppose the most.

I don't know if I'm fully understanding your words, do you think that mankind common heritage it's a matter of opinion? Mankind common heritage it's the result of an inner driven impulse witch doesn't have nothing "opinable". Humans just obey to it.

I'm referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage

Originally posted by Jaybro:

My grand children's arguments are not as valuable as mine. Theirs are governed by an openness and ignorance that makes them susceptible to philosophies such as the one that grips your life.

Do you see? You agree with me. And I'm sure that you do a pretty good job not letting them be influenced by Belfrager's theories. I've did the same regarding my son.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Your need for some sort of intellectual conformity is absolutely antithetical to my needs.

Because maybe you don't have a perspective of your society that implies a "forceful becoming", some kind of collective Future that it's your duty to accomplish and fulfill so your society, as a living organism, will never die. I know that's not very trendy today.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Change is troublesome for those stubbornly rooted in the archaic past.

Only deeply rooted at our past, with our feet solid anchored to the present, it's possible to successful face the in coming challenges of the future.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

The Aborigine's interpretation? Do you think that those folk considered their's as "the right interpretation"?

Of course they do. What else they could do? Believing that Eskimos are the right ones?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

Ah ah, a subtle introduction to Dawkins work (and world) using the gene / meme analogy, johnnysaucepn.
Nope, I don't see culture as only a biological alike process. I consider societies living organisms with some similar needs relating the biological ones, but both are more than just biology.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I'm referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_heritage

Ok I see. Space, oceans, human genome, etc as something not owned just by some but belonging to mankind. And human rights. That's another interesting subject but I was more focused at how each society develops it's internal cohesion regarding facing difference. Either external and internal differences.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Because maybe you don't have a perspective of your society that implies a "forceful becoming", some kind of collective Future that it's your duty to accomplish and fulfill so your society, as a living organism, will never die. I know that's not very trendy today.

As a living organism, the best way to ensure a collective future is flexibility and adaptation. That's how we got here in the first place - humankind hasn't achieved their physical dominance over the landscape by staying in the trees and eating nuts.

You sound like you're proposing some kind of Manifest Destiny - that kind of thinking leads to imperialism and war.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

and acting like Native Americans weren't massacred, agreements broken, etc. What is taught in history class ought to at least aspire to tell a story that's not pure fiction.

We are changing all that and making up a whole new story on the events you write about...Just stay tuned and by the time you are a old feller you too will know the truth .....as told... History changes 5 minutes after it happens.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

We are changing all that and making up a whole new story on the events you write about...Just stay tuned and by the time you are a old feller you too will know the truth .....as told... History changes 5 minutes after it happens.

and history will repeat itself no matter what

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Yes, I agree regarding the final product. But I think that cultural heritage itself (developing Arts, Science, Traditions, Religions, etc) that it's common to Mankind (despite the differences that each society has) it's an human instinct. I've tried to point out the difference between the non-option appeal to create a Common Heritage and the many different aspects it can present.
It's fundamental that each society deeply believes that their final cultural product it's the right interpretation of the original common human impulse, regarding that society circumstances.
Relativism, as much as imposed uniformity, deeply destroys that believe.

A: how is it common?
B: how is it Human Instinct?
C: (n) relativism ((philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved)
from http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=relativism
so how can you put every human being on this planet together and say its destroying that belief?
D:each individual culture survived by keeping they're on Heritage alive, there is no need for mixing everyones together
IMHO your confused a bit....

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

You sound like you're proposing some kind of Manifest Destiny - that kind of thinking leads to imperialism and war.

Nothing of the sort. Vital Space theories brings more problems than benefits, today Market it's the vital space. Anyway everything can lead to war.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

and history will repeat itself no matter what

And post whore has 1700 posts.....people complain about me being a troll and answer a thread like this. Supposedly educated people also........

I hope all the tried and true a voted......

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

You sound like you're proposing some kind of Manifest Destiny - that kind of thinking leads to imperialism and war.

Nothing of the sort. Vital Space theories brings more problems than benefits, today Market it's the vital space.

But you spoke about "some kind of collective Future that it's your duty to accomplish and fulfill so your society". So is it more important to be cohesive within shared goals of society, or to be independent and pursue your own goals? Or a mix of both?

Anyway everything can lead to war.

Of course it can. I didn't say otherwise.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

So is it more important to be cohesive within shared goals of society, or to be independent and pursue your own goals? Or a mix of both?

Do we exist outside our shared values?
The answer to your question (and to the thread) depends very much on the kind of society we are from. At collectivist (without any political connotation) societies, as southern European ones, individuals can't almost exist without very deep and strong life lasting relationships with several groups inside society and people feel a strong link to their society.
On the other hand, individualist societies, as Northern ones, people also connect with groups but based at their own personal interests. Individual value it's very important to them, here you can have all the value of this world, without the group support, you don't go anywhere.

By groups I mean groups of people that shares with you things so different as your home town, political ideas, social status, football club, family, profession, level of education, sexual preferences, old colleagues, friends, etc. All these groups are the key to protect you or attack you, people doesn't have any existence alone, by their own. So this kind of societies needs some very strong transversal values, values that are common to everyone, to not fall apart. At the same time that makes them extremely resistant against difficulties.

It has vantages and disadvantages, but defend it is a transversal value to all of us.
Resuming, at some societies the better thing to do it's being independent and pursue your own goals, at other societies don't even think about it. Of course this is not absolutely rigid, nuances and exceptions exist. Another aspect is each group internal hierarchy, who commands who.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

By groups I mean groups of people that shares with you things so different as your home town, political ideas, social status, football club, family, profession, level of education, sexual preferences, old colleagues, friends, etc. All these groups are the key to protect you or attack you, people doesn't have any existence alone, by their own. So this kind of societies needs some very strong transversal values, values that are common to everyone, to not fall apart. At the same time that makes them extremely resistant against difficulties.

Sounds like you're taking things to the extreme - a society that rigid would be completely unresistant to difficulties. Organisms without the ability to change and adapt die out very quickly. If you want strength and resilience, you have to include flexibility and changeability.

You have to give children the ability to learn for themselves. Teach them that things are done a certain way for good reasons, explain them where you can, re-evaluate them where you can't. Provide a manageable disciplined structure that works for both of you. The words "Because I say so" should be a last resort.

As you can probably tell, I don't have kids.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Of course they do. What else they could do? Believing that Eskimos are the right ones?

People rarely bother with thoughts of right and wrong interpretations of such matters. They simply live. I never wonder which spice a Portuguese cook would use in place of what I'm using...I just use the spice at hand that promises to do the job. Nor do I ever think about the Aboriginal interpretation of life events. Why in the world would I? Better yet, why would you?
.........................................

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

You have to give children the ability to learn for themselves. Teach them that things are done a certain way for good reasons, explain them where you can, re-evaluate them where you can't. Provide a manageable disciplined structure that works for both of you. The words "Because I say so" should be a last resort.

As you can probably tell, I don't have kids.

Yes, I can. And I'm guessing that our Portuguese friend doesn't, either. I could be wrong.

Most of what happens with children is ad hoc and relatively unstructured. Not that people don't operate out of value systems. They do.

I have two small grand boys running around the house as I type and one just asked "why" he shouldn't pull on the kitchen draperies. Now one is tormenting the other. I simply have to stop it before somebody goes ballistic...probably me!

More later, perhaps...I have to go and prepare the lunch that one of them is going to grouse about.

I prepared chicken fried rice. They wanted oriental noodles. Damn!

Don't let them get to you.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I prepared chicken fried rice. They wanted oriental noodles. Damn!

Well, I think there's an important lesson in there for both of you.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

By groups I mean groups of people that shares with you things so different as your home town, political ideas, social status, football club, family, profession, level of education, sexual preferences, old colleagues, friends, etc. All these groups are the key to protect you or attack you, people doesn't have any existence alone, by their own. So this kind of societies needs some very strong transversal values, values that are common to everyone, to not fall apart. At the same time that makes them extremely resistant against difficulties.

Beltrager has this one right. Education should not be involved in cultural conditioning. All that should be said is that there are many cultures, politics, religions/non religions and lifestyles. Everyone has a right to choose their lifestyle, politics, religion/non religion and acculturation. Anything more said at a grade school level is indoctrination.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Well, I think there's an important lesson in there for both of you.

All three of us.

They're likely to learn something: if you leave most of the food in the bowl, gramps probably won't do it again. The dog will love it.

I will forget the entire episode and prepare rice again, thinking it their favorite. Me? I prefer Ramen noodles.

What is this thread about, again?