Is Religion Ever Child Abuse? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is Religion Ever Child Abuse?
in Religion

By ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 562 Pts edited October 16
I think the answer to this question is both a yes and a no, dependent upon individual circumstances.  If a child is being told what to believe and will "burn in hell" if they don't believe what they're being told then this is indeed abuse. This is a form of psychological manipulation; although not intentional abuse I will grant, still abuse, nonetheless. Another example would be where a Jehovah's Witness refusing to give their child the medical care it needs because they believe this all part of God's plan; this is a form of physical abuse for sure. The latter example presented here is a very severe type of abuse; that a parent would let their child die from disease because of some "strong held belief" about God's plan with no other bases except just "pure blind faith!" 

Now, faith need not generally be a bad thing. In fact, like hope, it can serve as a reliable heuristic in some cases, such as believing in yourself to win a race in a sporting event. However, when faith is being used in place of reason, logic, and critical evaluation then that's the problem and a very dire one indeed!

Moreover, religion in itself, of course, is not abuse. It is, however, the indoctrination imposed upon young minds that is abuse. Albeit, this doesn't just apply to religion; there are other belief systems that also get infringed upon young people's minds. I believe that children should be allowed to grow up to form their own decisions about what to believe and what not believe. If they decide that they want to be an Atheist then so be it; if they want to follow a particular religion then so be it, and the parents should welcome this whether they are an Atheist or a Theist.

Religion is and should be a choice. However, it is often imposed upon children rather than having them learned about it first, and then make up their own minds. As I also mentioned some people will even go so far as put the "fear of God" into some young minds that if they don't believe and behave in a such a way they will suffer in hell for eternity. Furthermore, I also said that this kind of indoctrination also applies to other types of indoctrination but I will be so bold and contend that a lot of religious adults are the worst for doing it.

Furthermore, I think also needs mentioning that Atheist too should by the same token be careful not to infringe their views upon young minds and dictate to them what not to believe. With that being said, however, I do think (generally speaking) an Atheist parent would be far more tolerable of a child that decided to follow a religion than a strong practising Christian, Muslim, or Jew would be of their child becoming an Atheist.

Edit: Another thing I have recently stumbled across lately of which I was ignorant about is FGM (female genital mutilation). https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/female-genital-mutilation-prosecution-guidance. Make no mistake, this is abuse and a criminal offence in the UK among many other first world countries. Also, I am pleased to say that according to UK legislation this being done because of religious ideology is no acceptable excuse whatsoever.

So, taking a number of things into account I think we can safely conclude that in some cases' religion is a form of abuse and other cases it isn't.


PlaffelvohfenHumbug

The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

«1345



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • I agree that the actual abuse is made when indoctrination is applied, and since it's not exclusive to religions we cannot affirm that religions are ever in themselves, a form of abuse... Now, the problem I think, may arise when indoctrinated people reproduce, as I think indoctrinated ideas/beliefs tend to spread via this same abusive method. An indoctrinated mind is a broken mind, a tainted mind, it has assimilated not only the belief but also the tainted method by which he/she came to hold that belief and is bound to perpetuate the same method with their own offspring as they do not know better because they are themselves indoctrinated, it's a vicious circle... 

    Now, are all religious people indoctrinated? I don't think so... But I do think a lot of them are to some extent, and usually unaware...
    ZeusAres42GeoLibCogScientist
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • edited July 31
    I think it is abuse for anyone. You brought up its child abuse when threatening someone with eternal torment if they don't believe, but doing that for anyone is literally a threat. It's certainly worse to do it to a child, but it's also wrong to threaten adults.

    As someone with an associate degree in psychology and furthering my education in the cognitive sciences, I have to agree with your arguments of it being psychological manipulation. That said, technically speaking all human interactions are psychologically manipulative. My post here in itself is a form of psychological manipulation by the fact it is indeed triggering neurotransmission in those who read it, as did your argument here. In particular, me mentioning I have a background in psychology manipulated you to likely believe I know a thing or two on this subject. The question is, what defines psychological manipulation that is good versus bad or benign. I would agree with you that the use of any kind of threat is a bad form of psychological manipulation. While us debating here is minimum benign or maybe even good manipulation. 

    Now, theistic beliefs in themselves are not necessarily bad manipulation. However, I would argue all organized, hierarchical religions are. One must wonder, why did those lower in the hierarchy of Nazi Germany carry out immoral orders? Well, psychologists Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram have much to say about human psychology and hierarchy/authority. In general, one is more likely to do something they would otherwise find immoral if they believe an authority figure whom they believe knows more about the topic, orders them to do it. The same applies to religion, after all, those lower in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church during the middle ages obeyed the orders to burn heretics, atheists, and scientists at the stake. Thus, there is a fundamental issue with having hierarchies in place such as organized religion.
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    edited July 31
    I think in a lot of cases it is but a type of herd mentality kicks in as in if the majority are doing it it cannot be abuse can it ? 

    In my country the Catholic Church held sway from government all the way down to every member of the community,  they brutalized and tyrannisised the population and anyone who strayed from the path was isolated and picked upon.

    To tell mere children they’re going to roast in hell and use the same continuous threats against parents is abuse plain and simple ,religious indoctrination relies on instilling fear into young minds for it to be most effective.

    Religion in my country no longer holds sway the way it did as it had to evolve or perish  with the times and become less regressive and divisive, I think that’s mainly because people began to experience how different cultures lived through TV , media and travel .

    Millions of people across the world think it natural to brutalise others through Sharia law and very almost no one  in the media calls it abuse  but make excuses and use terms like cultural differences etc, etc. Claiming abuses are not such and re- naming them “ cultural differences “ is a form of collective cowardice that does not take away the fact that people are beaten , tortured and killed for the most minor infractions of Sharia law . Islam  has to evolve into a softer version of itself or perish, I think that process has begun as I can see in my country where many of them , live exposure to other societies is beneficial in such cases.

    The argument has and continues to come up that a lot of interactions are  indoctrination , maybe some are as in extremes like North Korea where the system is similar to religious  indoctrination the definition of which is ...The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically...... This is the traditional way religious indoctrination  took  place and that is abuse as one has to accept uncritically .This practice no longer holds sway in certainly the Catholic Church in most countries as it’s no longer tolerated but it certainly holds sway in the majority of Muslim countries , and yes in that form it’s abuse.

    Religion was forced upon me and fellow Catholics 24/7 in school , society and through ones friends that’s classic religious indoctrination and takes a long time to get over 

  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    You say ...... The question is, what defines psychological manipulation that is good versus bad or benign. I would agree with you that the use of any kind of threat is a bad form of psychological manipulation. While us debating here is minimum benign or maybe even good manipulation.  

    My reply .....Your question although interesting is sidestepping the issue,  it seems to me you’re attempting to put a softer interpretation on what religious indoctrination is and entails , religious indoctrination is teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

    You and I interacting is totally different as I do not have to accept your ideas uncritically nor you mine as mostly no penalty ensues from such disagreements,  we either come to terms or part ways and that’s that.

    It seems also you’re using the term manipulation with its negative connotations which is to twist words , play on emotions etc , etc , good manipulation would be to use persuasive argumentation etc , etc , in either case one can still question and does not have to accept uncritically what you say 
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    No, it's not child abuse.

    Show one court case, where Religion itself, has ever been found guilty of child abuse?

    Or where parents were incarcerated, because of they teaching their kids about religion?

    Neither one exist.
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB

    You say ....

    No, it's not child abuse.

    My reply .....Merely your opinion nothing else 

    You say .......Show one court case, where Religion itself, has ever been found guilty of child abuse?

    My reply.....Show me one court  case  where rape was found guilty of a crime? 

    You say ......Or where parents were incarcerated, because of they teaching their kids about religion?

    My reply ......The teaching of ideas rarely gets one put in jail , that includes abusive ideas 

    You say .....Neither one exist.

    My reply .....Your argument has been defeated try a new one 
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @Dee

    I've looked then up:

    Show one court case, where Religion itself, has ever been found guilty of child abuse?

    Or where parents were incarcerated, because of they teaching their kids about religion? 

    You look them up.

    It's real life fact.


    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 31
    To the anti religious crowd:

    Google the name Richard Dawkins:

    He wrote an anti religious book based on his own opinion?

    So he's a celebrity, because of his individual opinion, that isn't factual, imagine that, on the internet? 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB

    Ignoring my reply only makes you look desperate, read my response slowly and honestly attempt to respond if you cannot I’m not interested in your preaching 
    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB

    What has Richard Dawkins got to do with me?

  • @TKDB

    You say .......Show one court case, where Religion itself, has ever been found guilty of child abuse?

    You say ......Or where parents were incarcerated, because of they teaching their kids about religion?
    One of my paragraphs in my argument was actually the following:
    Moreover, religion in itself, of course, is not abuse. It is, however, the indoctrination imposed upon young minds that is abuse. Albeit, this doesn't just apply to religion; there are other belief systems that also get infringed upon young people's minds. believe that children should be allowed to grow up to form their own decisions about what to I believe and what not believe. If they decide that they want to be an Atheist then so be it; if they want to follow a particular religion then so be it, and the parents should welcome this whether they are an Atheist or a Theist.

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/3823/is-religion-ever-child-abuse




    Dee

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @Dee

    My statement:

    To the anti religious crowd:

    Google the name Richard Dawkins:

    He wrote an anti religious book based on his own opinion?

    So he's a celebrity, because of his individual opinion, that isn't factual, imagine that, on the internet?  

    Were you mentioned in the above statement?

    No, you weren't.

    So your statements to me, are irrelevant.

    "Ignoring my reply only makes you look desperate, read my response slowly and honestly attempt to respond if you cannot I’m not interested in your preaching"

    "What has Richard Dawkins got to do with me?"


    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    To the anti religious crowd:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

    "The God Delusion is a 2006 book by English biologist Richard Dawkins, a professorial fellow at New College, Oxford[1][2] and former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. "

    "In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila(1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."[3] With many examples, he explains that one does not need religion to be moral and that the roots of religion and of morality can be explained in non-religious terms.

    In early December 2006, it reached number four in the New York Times Hardcover Non-Fiction Best Seller list after nine weeks on the list.[4] More than three million copies were sold.[5] According to Dawkins in a 2016 interview with Matt Dillahunty, an unauthorised Arabic translation of this book has been downloaded 3 million times in Saudi Arabia.[6] The book has attracted widespread commentary, with many books written in response. "


    "Dawkins dedicates the book to Douglas Adams and quotes the novelist: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"[12]:7 The book contains ten chapters. The first few chapters make a case that there almost certainly is no God, while the rest discuss religion and morality.

    Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:

    1. Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
    2. Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
    3. Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe.
    4. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.[3]

    "God hypothesis"Edit

    Chapter one, "A deeply religious non-believer", seeks to clarify the difference between what Dawkins terms "Einsteinian religion" and "supernatural religion". He notes that the former includes quasi-mystical and pantheistic references to God in the work of physicists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, and describes such pantheism as "sexed up atheism". Dawkins instead takes issue with the theism present in religions like Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism.[13] The proposed existence of this interventionist God, which Dawkins calls the "God Hypothesis", becomes an important theme in the book.[14] He maintains that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific fact about the universe, which is discoverable in principle if not in practice.[15]

    Dawkins summarises the main philosophical arguments on God's existence, singling out the argument from design for longer consideration. Dawkins concludes that evolution by natural selection can explain apparent design in nature.[3]

    He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and suggests that there are two competing explanations:

    1. A hypothesis involving a designer, that is, a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.
    2. A hypothesis, with supporting theories, that explains how, from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.

    This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,[16]where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward.[17]

    At the end of chapter 4 ("Why there almost certainly is no God"), Dawkins sums up his argument and states, "The temptation [to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself] is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable".[18] In addition, chapter 4 asserts that the alternative to the designer hypothesis is not chance, but natural selection.

    Dawkins does not claim to disprove God with absolute certainty. Instead, he suggests as a general principle that simpler explanations are preferable (see Occam's razor) and that an omniscient or omnipotent God must be extremely complex (Dawkins argues that it is logically impossible for a God to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent). As such he argues that the theory of a universe without a God is preferable to the theory of a universe with a God.[19]  "


    "Other themesEdit

    The God Delusion is not just a defence of atheism, but also goes on the offensive against religion. Dawkins sees religion as subverting science, fostering fanaticism, encouraging bigotry against homosexuals, and influencing society in other negative ways.[23] Dawkins regards religion as a "divisive force" and as a "label for in-group/out-group enmity and vendetta".[24]

    He is most outraged about the teaching of religion in schools, which he considers to be an indoctrination process. He equates the religious teaching of children by parents and teachers in faith schools to a form of mental abuse. Dawkins considers the labels "Muslim child" and "Catholic child" equally misapplied as the descriptions "Marxist child" and "Tory child", as he wonders how a young child can be considered developed enough to have such independent views on the cosmos and humanity's place within it.

    The book concludes with the question of whether religion, despite its alleged problems, fills a "much needed gap", giving consolation and inspiration to people who need it. According to Dawkins, these needs are much better filled by non-religious means such as philosophy and science. He suggests that an atheistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion, with its unsatisfying "answers" to life's mysteries, could never be. An appendix gives addresses for those "needing support in escaping religion". "

    Mr. Dawkins opinions, speak for themselves.

    So his opinion is great educational material, for those who are looking to educate themselves on some of the anti religious self created opinions?

    So to the public, at large, educate your selves, on some of the anti religious opinions.



    Plaffelvohfen
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB

    You say .....Were you mentioned in the above statement?

    No, you weren't.

    So your statements to me, are irrelevant

    My reply ....Well post your comments to someone else why are you telling me your personal opinions on someone I don’t know?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 31
    @Dee

    Here's what I said.

    My statement:

    (To the anti religious crowd:

    Google the name Richard Dawkins:

    He wrote an anti religious book based on his own opinion?

    So he's a celebrity, because of his individual opinion, that isn't factual, imagine that, on the internet? )

    Were you mentioned in the above statement?

    No, you weren't. 

    Have a good day.
    PlaffelvohfenDee
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 31
    "A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence."

    Richard Dawkins

    Is it delusional to come to the internet, to push an individual ideology, because a keyboard, makes that delusional pursuit possible?

    It's the self cultivation of more opinion pushing. 

    https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/is-it-child-abuse-to-teach-christianity-to-your-children-dawkins-thinks-so/

    "Is It Child Abuse to Teach Christianity to Your Children?"

    "Dawkins Thinks So"


    My question is this, what legitimate evidence, does Mr. Dawkins, have to support his opinion?

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Dee
  • DeeDee 748 Pts

    @TKDB

    You say ....Were you mentioned in the above statement?

    My reply .....Well stop posting your stupidity to me then 
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB

    You say ......Where is Mr. Dawkins evidence, that those parents who are teaching their kids about Religion, should be viewed as child abusers? 

    My reply ......Why don’t you ask him you lunatic 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 31
    To the anti religious crowd:

    Do you have any legitimate evidence to support your anti religious opinions, so that the overall public, can be educated on facts, instead of individual opinions? 

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion

    "Antireligion is opposition to religion of any kind.[1][2][3]It involves opposition to organized religionreligious practices or religious institutions. The term antireligion has also been used to describe opposition to specific forms of supernatural worship or practice, whether organized or not. Opposition to religion also goes beyond the misotheistic spectrum. As such, antireligion is distinct from deity-specific positions such as atheism (the lack of belief in deities) and antitheism (an opposition to belief in deities); although "antireligionists" may also be atheists or antitheists. "




  • You say ......Where is Mr. Dawkins evidence, that those parents who are teaching their kids about Religion, should be viewed as child abusers?

    Although irrelevant I would like to point out that Richard Dawkins in an Interview once did actually say he believed children should be taught about religion. It was the dictating to a child what they should believe in which is what he is against. Likewise, I also made this point clear in my argument.

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/3823/is-religion-ever-child-abuse



    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 31
    @ZeusAres42

    "It was the dictating to a child what they should believe in which is what he is against."

    Where is his evidence, that parents are dictating to their children, what their children should believe in?

    The curious thing about kids, once they reach 18 years of age, they can voluntary choose to pursue religion in general, or they can pursue, the anti religious perceptions as well, if they so choose to? 

    My parents didn't dictate to me about religion, they left it open to me, if I wanted to learn more about religion or not?

    But the internet, via how some the anti religious have come to utilize it, for their anti religious ideology spreading, has taught me even more about religion, than going to church has.

    So I thank the anti religious, for their anti religious platform, because it has helped, to develop a deeper appreciation for the fellowship of humanity, by how some of the communities, take care of each other.

  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    Interesting , I’ve no problem with children being taught about the world’s religions either most get this information from History classes 
  • John_C_87John_C_87 211 Pts
    @TKDB ;

    TKDB is asking for information which must be requested often through the court. Saying there is no evidence is a lie documentation of evidence collected so far is under judicial review as a whole. The issue is the freedom of religion allows for a self-representation of constitutional trial at the expense of the host church in question as it is independent by way of limited taxation for constitutional reprteatation to judicial separation of church and state.

    Show one court case, where Religion itself, has ever been found guilty of child abuse? Within United States or outside the united States? One of the most well know is the Spanish Inquisition. Most all religious accusation of abuse are civil proceedings, the criminal charges are settled or pending. The church of Scientology, The Catholic Church, and Buddhist temples all have had criminal charges in several nations for several different reasons. We can go on to add  Sunni and Shiite by united state formed in the union made with the shared belief publicly without distinction. This is an example of the freedom of religion made also in the first Amendment on judicial basic  principle and legal precedent. Translating an understanding of separation of religion based on observation of basic principle and the sharing of the principle publicly.

     I would be happy to do you research and judicial; library inquires as a legal assistant TKDB  how much do you pay?

    It is also an understanding that the Church of England had grievance filed against it on behalf of some of the thirteen colonies, the outcome of which became part of the American Revolution and Independence War. We can go on to use Science and the Jewish religion in the treatment of POW's in Germany during World War II, where the court after the war provided compensation in the form of land.

  • Now, theistic beliefs in themselves are not necessarily bad manipulation. However, I would argue all organized, hierarchical religions are. One must wonder, why did those lower in the hierarchy of Nazi Germany carry out immoral orders? Well, psychologists Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram have much to say about human psychology and hierarchy/authority. In general, one is more likely to do something they would otherwise find immoral if they believe an authority figure whom they believe knows more about the topic, orders them to do it. The same applies to religion, after all, those lower in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church during the middle ages obeyed the orders to burn heretics, atheists, and scientists at the stake. Thus, there is a fundamental issue with having hierarchies in place such as organized religion.
    I would say these are theistic beliefs leading to direct forms of abuse. That being said, the infringing beliefs upon children and telling them in one way or another that they need to accept this uncritically, without question is a form of direct abuse too I will contend. Unlike adults, a child's mind is more vulnerable and susceptible than what our adult minds are, generally speaking. This, in essence, is depriving the child the freedom of exploration, and to be able to choose what to believe or not based on what they learn.

    Now, talking of psychological manipulation it is plausible that several different kinds of manipulation like the example you mentioned about you conversing with me, for instance, is taking place. However, unlike me and you a child will most likely not be able to think in the same critical way, and/or could fear the consequences whatever they are about even attempting to question those beliefs. What's more, is we also need to remember that these children would have had beliefs instilled into them from very young ages for some time by people in their highest circle of trust and care. And I will argue that this is a bad, negative form of manipulation, or to put it another; psychological and/or mental abuse.

    Moreover, the above paragraph is addressing one degree of abuse. At this point, I do think it needs mentioning that there are different degrees of abuse in terms of severity. The degree in regards to the above kind of abuse though rests upon exactly whether or not these beliefs are actually leading to more harm, whether they be physical, emotional, psychological, etc.

    Furthermore, I also happened to mention something about a Jehova's Witness allowing their children to die in the name of religion, and I would just like to expand on that a bit more. I will contend that one of the worst forms of religious-based child abuse would have to be "Faith-based  medical neglect" or "Child death by the religious exemption." Here are also some case examples really bringing this heinous form of abuse home:
    Ian Lundman, age 11, died May 9, 1989, in Minneapolis, Minnesota of medically untreated juvenile onset diabetes. His mother and stepfather, as Christian Scientists, had the boy treated by a church practitioner instead of a medical doctor. Ian died in a diabetic coma. http://ethics.iit.edu/EEL/Lundman.pdf
    Neil Beagley, age 15 died June in Oregon 2008. He had a urinary tract blockage that could have been corrected by a fairly simple catheterization. It wasn’t corrected though, because Neil’s parents had taught him that God, not man, should cure disease if it is to be cured at all. http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132

    Matthew Swan, age 16 months, died of spinal meningitis in 1977 in Detroit, Michigan. His parents, Doug and Rita Swan, both lifelong Christian Scientists, retained Christian Science practitioners for spiritual "treatments."

    Christian Science contends that illness is an illusion caused by faulty beliefs, and that prayer heals by replacing bad thoughts with good ones. https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Victims/matthew.html
    Austin Sprout was only 16 years old and his parents believed that their faith alone would heal him even though five years earlier, Brian Sprout, Austin's father, died of Sepsis after he refused medical care thinking that his faith alone was enough to make him well. The Sprout family are members of a church called The General Assembly Church Of The Fist Born, a church which is known for practicing faith healing.

    Brandi Bellew, who remarried after the death of her husband Brian as well as her husband Russell, faced second degree manslaughter charges after the death of Austin. http://www.angelizdsplace.com/child163.htm.
    William Hermanson, 42, and his 38-year-old wife Christine were convicted in the death of their daughter Amy, who died at home in 1986 of diabetes (only 7 years old) after they relied on prayer for her recovery instead of seeking medical attention.
    Robyn Twitchell, age two, died in April, 1986, in Boston, Massachusetts, of a bowel obstruction. A simple operation to remove the twisting of the bowel would have most likely saved Robyn's life. Robyn was seriously ill over a five day period; he was in severe pain, vomiting intermittently and he had serious difficulty eating and sleeping. The parents, David and Ginger Twitchell, contacted a church practitioner the first day of Robyn's illness. The practitioner treated the boy's serious medical illness only by prayer. Subsequently, Robyn's illness became "much worse": he was shaking and vomiting and then became unresponsive. Still the parents and the practitioner did not seek medical help, preferring instead to use prayer as the only treatment.
    I will stop here but there are multiple incidences of these cases. You can find more in the following references and probably more  from there on:
    So my stance that in some cases that religion is abuse and in others perhaps not so much. It is very clear, however, that the above case reports are true examples of wicked abuse in the highest degree possible. There is no reasonable, rational, or logical justification for someone to allow their child to die a horrible death based on a belief that is rested on nothing more than blind faith when there exists sufficient medical care that would most likely save the child and provide him/her with longevity.
    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 31
    My stance:

    Some humans act inhumane, and then, will hide behind Religion, as an Excuse Shield, to hide from the shaming of themselves, by the public of the United States, and abroad, globally.

    Some of the anti religious individuals, are notorious, for mentioning some of the Crusades of the past?

    A movie called "Kingdom Of Heaven" came out, some year's ago.

    And there's a scene where the human beings on the screen, express aloud, "God wills it!" 

    And then those Crusaders, go off and engage in battle, because these human beings, expressed to each other, "God, wills it!"

    Then I came across, the anti religious individuals, on the internet, and they helped me to develop a perspective on their accumulated mindset.

    So then, I rewatched that "God, wills it" scene, with my eyes closed, to listen, to see if God's voice, willed these human beings, to go to war, and there's no factual evidence that God told those humans to go engage in battle, as they did.

    And there's no factual evidence, that an inhumane human being, that committed their inhumane cnrimes, that God, is an eye witness, and testified against, that inhumane offender, for their crimes.

    Or that God, was taken into custody, and confessed, to telling an inhumane human, to commit a crime, because, "God, willed the inhumane human, to do so? 

    Only opinion, speculation, and excuses, are able to place God, at the scenes, of some of the inhumane things, that some humans, have against, other human beings. 



    Plaffelvohfen
  • John_C_87John_C_87 211 Pts

    Only opinion, speculation, and excuses, are able to place God, at the scenes, of some of the inhumane things, that some humans, have against, other human beings. 

    This isn't true. GOD as a axiom can be placed at all known scenes of humane or inhumane things performed by people and animal as a general numerical axiom. In basic principle unknown is simply something not identified as having taken place so it is undiscovered. The question asked is religion ever child abuse, has a answer of simply yes, is religion responsible for child abuse as a united state, the answer is simply no. GOD being made a witness to a condition or circumstance is not the same as GOD bearing the blame of the issue.

    A need to describe a tangible representation of GOD as whole truth exists, an axiom of numbers formed by the use of letters as a equation which can be viewed openly as something easily misunderstood, the numbers are 400, 11, 500, also 89. There are only three letters yet the numerical translation has four numbers. This is a example of basic principle. Hope this help............
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB

    What are you even babbling about? You either drunk , insane or trolling , I think it’s a combination of all three 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • edited July 31
    @Dee
    Yes, you're correct. I had no intention to downplay how bad religious indoctrination is. I merely wanted to show a different perspective on things, that every human interaction is a form of manipulation. We often don't think of them that way, and many of us fall victim to people we thought were friends, or even a romantic partner, who was actually purposely manipulating us in a bad way. That's why I brought this up to spread awareness about it. Both as someone who grew up in a religion that many consider a cult(I'm an ex-Mormon), and having an ex-girlfriend who was a complete fake who manipulated me to such a strong degree. This has, in-part, encouraged me to study psychology and the cognitive sciences in general to learn more about things like manipulation. Of course I have many reasons for going into the cognitive sciences though.

    But yes, I apologize if it seemed like I was downplaying religious indoctrination. I definitely did not mean to do that. If you notice, I did clearly indicate that all hierarchical religious institutions are a bad form of psychological manipulation.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited July 31
    @John_C_87

    Prove your wordy conviction, back your claims up?

    Because your opinion apparently can't support your claims, can it? 

    God, didn't hurt anyone.

    Inhumane humans abuse kids.

    And rape, and sexually assault, and kill innocent people, their prison sentences count, are the truths that count, aren't they? 

    The kids, that they abused, their truths count, the victims, that they raped, and or, sexually assaulted, and killed, their truths count, don't they?

    Because a court of laws, found those inhumane humans guilty of their crimes, and God wasn't found guilty along with any of those incarcerated inhumane humans, in those same court of laws, was God, yes, or no?

    "GOD as an axiom can be placed at all known scenes of humane or inhumane things performed by people"

    What word, are you going to mull over next after your "Axiom" word? 

    Being that your word, is sad tool, apparently, being used to harass religion with?

    The labels attached to your word:

    "Accepted truth"
    "General truth"
    "Dictum"
    "Truism"
    "Proposition"
    "Postulate"
    "Saying"
    Or "Adage."

    But the words Legitimate, and Factual, seem to be missing from the definition of your word? 

    ax·i·om
    /ˈaksēəm/
    noun
    1. a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
      "the axiom that supply equals demand"
      synonyms:accepted truth, general truth, dictum, truism, principle; 
      proposition, postulate;
      maxim, saying, adage.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • It can be. I am a Christian, but I have to admit the truth.
    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87John_C_87 211 Pts
    @TKDB
    It's not a opinion, a truth can easily be denied by any-one, and a self-evident truth may take an understanding of logic not all people share as united state.
    Are you saying publicly basic algebra does not use letters to replace numbers? no? Is there no such thing as freedom of speech and press to assign numbers a translation to letter, Freedom of religion, those who are without appointed cost, or self-value.

     https://www.intmath.com/basic-algebra/basic-algebra-intro.php
    http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/history-of-numbers.html

    Yes ,the claim describing GOD as an axiom which is a visible trail of logical excepted truth can be evidence left by crime or non criminal event set for observation in honor.

    Arithmomancy

    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arithmancy



  • It can be. I am a Christian, but I have to admit the truth.
    In fact, I know a few Theists in person that can also understand that in some cases religion can be a form of abuse. I am sure there are many other Theists out there too.

    The above case reports I mentioned earlier I am sure most honest Theists, as well as Atheist, can agree are acts of one the worst kinds of cruelty.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 1
    @ZeusAres42

    "In fact, I know a few Theists in person that can also understand that in some cases religion can be a form of abuse."

    Prove your individual claim? 

    Where has God, ever been tried in a court of law, for child abuse?

    If you're going to blame Religion for child abuse, then trying God, for child abuse, would be fair an equal, to show equality right towards God then right?

    If the anti religious want to lump child abuse in, and blame Religion for an inhumane human, abusing a child, then shouldn't there be fair and equal representation before a Court of Law, to put God on trial, along with the abusive human, and try God, and Religion for the abuse of a child, by an inhumane human?

    Isn't that what, Equality is supposed to be striving for?

    Fair and equal Treatment for all? 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42

  • TKDB is asking for information which must be requested often through the court. Saying there is no evidence is a lie documentation of evidence collected so far is under judicial review as a whole. The issue is the freedom of religion allows for a self-representation of constitutional trial at the expense of the host church in question as it is independent by way of limited taxation for constitutional reprteatation to judicial separation of church and state.

    Show one court case, where Religion itself, has ever been found guilty of child abuse? Within United States or outside the united States? One of the most well know is the Spanish Inquisition. Most all religious accusation of abuse are civil proceedings, the criminal charges are settled or pending. The church of Scientology, The Catholic Church, and Buddhist temples all have had criminal charges in several nations for several different reasons. We can go on to add  Sunni and Shiite by united state formed in the union made with the shared belief publicly without distinction. This is an example of the freedom of religion made also in the first Amendment on judicial basic  principle and legal precedent. Translating an understanding of separation of religion based on observation of basic principle and the sharing of the principle publicly.

     I would be happy to do you research and judicial; library inquires as a legal assistant TKDB  how much do you pay?

    It is also an understanding that the Church of England had grievance filed against it on behalf of some of the thirteen colonies, the outcome of which became part of the American Revolution and Independence War. We can go on to use Science and the Jewish religion in the treatment of POW's in Germany during World War II, where the court after the war provided compensation in the form of land.

    I am not sure if you have noticed what has actually been done here by TKDB, which is to make a misrepresentation about the original argument and then defend that instead as it makes it much easier to provide a counter-argument against something that oneself created as opposed to taking issue with was actually presented in its entirety in the first place. I do not know if he has done this intentionally or not but it has been done. 


    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.


  • TKDB is asking for information which must be requested often through the court. Saying there is no evidence is a lie documentation of evidence collected so far is under judicial review as a whole. The issue is the freedom of religion allows for a self-representation of constitutional trial at the expense of the host church in question as it is independent by way of limited taxation for constitutional reprteatation to judicial separation of church and state.

    Show one court case, where Religion itself, has ever been found guilty of child abuse? Within United States or outside the united States? One of the most well know is the Spanish Inquisition. Most all religious accusation of abuse are civil proceedings, the criminal charges are settled or pending. The church of Scientology, The Catholic Church, and Buddhist temples all have had criminal charges in several nations for several different reasons. We can go on to add  Sunni and Shiite by united state formed in the union made with the shared belief publicly without distinction. This is an example of the freedom of religion made also in the first Amendment on judicial basic  principle and legal precedent. Translating an understanding of separation of religion based on observation of basic principle and the sharing of the principle publicly.

     I would be happy to do you research and judicial; library inquires as a legal assistant TKDB  how much do you pay?

    It is also an understanding that the Church of England had grievance filed against it on behalf of some of the thirteen colonies, the outcome of which became part of the American Revolution and Independence War. We can go on to use Science and the Jewish religion in the treatment of POW's in Germany during World War II, where the court after the war provided compensation in the form of land.

    I am not sure if you have noticed what has actually been done here by TKDB, which is to make a misrepresentation about the original argument and then defend that instead as it makes it much easier to provide a counter-argument against something that oneself created as opposed to taking issue with was actually presented in its entirety in the first place. I do not know if he has done this intentionally or not but it has been done. 



    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    "In fact, I know a few Theists in person that can also understand that in some cases religion can be a form of abuse."

    Prove your individual claim? 

    Where has God, ever been tried in a court of law, for child abuse?

    If you're going to blame Religion for child abuse, then trying God, for child abuse, would be fair an equal, to show equality right towards God then right?

    If the anti religious want to lump child abuse in, and blame Religion for an inhumane human, abusing a child, then shouldn't there be fair and equal representation before a Court of Law, to put God on trial, along with the abusive human, and try God, and Religion for the abuse of a child, by an inhumane human?

    Isn't that what, Equality is supposed to be striving for?

    Fair and equal Treatment for all? 
    I do not need to prove a claim that I never even made in the first place. So I will pass. Thanks.
    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 1
    @ZeusAres42

    "I am not sure if you have noticed what has actually been done here by TKDB, which is to make a misrepresentation about the original argument and then defend that instead as it makes it much easier to provide a counter-argument against something that oneself created as opposed to taking issue with was actually presented in its entirety in the first place. I do not know if he has done this intentionally or not but it has been done."

    "Is Religion Ever Child Abuse?"

    "I think the answer to this question is both a yes and a no, dependent upon individual circumstances.  If a child is being told what to believe and will "burn in hell" if they don't believe what they're being told then this is indeed abuse. This is a form of psychological manipulation; although not intentional abuse I will grant, still abuse, nonetheless."

    The answer to your question, isn't of your own opinion, is it? 

    (My parent's are religious, and they never told me that if I didn't believe, what they were telling me religious wise, that I would burn in Hell) 

    "If a child is being told what to believe and "will burn in Hell" if they don't believe what they're being told, then this is indeed abuse."

    Do you have any video evidence, to cooberate this statement from you?
    (Maybe from YouTube?)

    So no, Religion isn't child abuse.

    Did you interview any religious individuals, or go inside of the religious buildings, so that they could give their side of the story, to your questions? 

    Rephrasing the question, because God, Jesus, and Religion, deserve EQUAL representation in the court of anti religious opinion, doesn't it?

    If you're going to blame Religion for child abuse, then trying God, for child abuse, would be fair an equal, to show equality right towards God then right?

    If the anti religious want to lump child abuse in, and blame Religion for an inhumane human, abusing a child, then shouldn't there be fair and equal representation before a Court of Law, to put God on trial, along with the abusive human, and try God, and Religion for the abuse of a child, by an inhumane human?

    Isn't that what, Equality is supposed to be striving for?

    Fair and equal treatment for all?  

    "I do not need to prove a claim that I never even made in the first place. So I will pass. Thanks."

    Then, maybe you are, in a sense, not being fair, or equal, to the God conversation, the Religion conversation, or the public in general, who is trying to learn through your opinion, or perceptions, when it comes to the root of your question then it would seem?

    "Is Religion ever child abuse?"

    Again, fair and equal treatment for all? 



    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 1
    The truth is:

    God, Jesus, and Religion in general, have never been tried in a Real Life Court of Law, for any crime, that a human being has committed?
    (If there isn't any evidence, then it's just individualized opinion, isn't it?)

    Including child abuse, rape, murder, domestic violence, verbal abuse, and psychological manipulation, or abuse as well.
    (If there isn't any evidence, then it's just individualized opinion, isn't it?)

    But if there is any legitimate, or viable evidence, that speaks to the contrary, I myself, and the public, in general would be to be educated by such shared legitimate, and or viable evidence, being made available to the public? 
    Plaffelvohfen

  • Now, theistic beliefs in themselves are not necessarily bad manipulation. However, I would argue all organized, hierarchical religions are. One must wonder, why did those lower in the hierarchy of Nazi Germany carry out immoral orders? Well, psychologists Philip Zimbardo and Stanley Milgram have much to say about human psychology and hierarchy/authority. In general, one is more likely to do something they would otherwise find immoral if they believe an authority figure whom they believe knows more about the topic, orders them to do it. The same applies to religion, after all, those lower in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church during the middle ages obeyed the orders to burn heretics, atheists, and scientists at the stake. Thus, there is a fundamental issue with having hierarchies in place such as organized religion.
    I would say these are theistic beliefs leading to direct forms of abuse. That being said, the infringing beliefs upon children and telling them in one way or another that they need to accept this uncritically, without question is a form of direct abuse too I will contend. Unlike adults, a child's mind is more vulnerable and susceptible than what our adult minds are, generally speaking. This, in essence, is depriving the child the freedom of exploration, and to be able to choose what to believe or not based on what they learn.

    Now, talking of psychological manipulation it is plausible that several different kinds of manipulation like the example you mentioned about you conversing with me, for instance, is taking place. However, unlike me and you a child will most likely not be able to think in the same critical way, and/or could fear the consequences whatever they are about even attempting to question those beliefs. What's more, is we also need to remember that these children would have had beliefs instilled into them from very young ages for some time by people in their highest circle of trust and care. And I will argue that this is a bad, negative form of manipulation, or to put it another; psychological and/or mental abuse.

    Moreover, the above paragraph is addressing one degree of abuse. At this point, I do think it needs mentioning that there are different degrees of abuse in terms of severity. The degree in regards to the above kind of abuse though rests upon exactly whether or not these beliefs are actually leading to more harm, whether they be physical, emotional, psychological, etc.

    Furthermore, I also happened to mention something about a Jehova's Witness allowing their children to die in the name of religion, and I would just like to expand on that a bit more. I will contend that one of the worst forms of religious-based child abuse would have to be "Faith-based  medical neglect" or "Child death by the religious exemption." Here are also some case examples really bringing this heinous form of abuse home: .... [rest is cut out by Geolibcogscientist for brevity's sake]
    I ought to mention I don't disagree with you much at all. I only commented to bring another perspective to this. My perspective, however, is more or less agreeing with yours. Think of what I've said as a means to further substantiate your argument.

    There is a very slight nuance here I do want to present, but keep in mind that generally, I agree that children are less capable of critical thinking. I would be a very bad future cognitive scientist if I didn't recognize that, generally speaking, children are much further behind in their development of the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for upper-thinking and reason/critical thinking skills. It's one of the parts of the brain to develop last - not even finished until the mid-20s on average.

    Note that I said on average, and there is where I'm presenting my nuance. There are always outliers. There could very well be some 12-year-old with their prefrontal cortex developed to the level the average 22-year-old would have. At any rate, don't take this as me disagreeing with you entirely. On average, I do. On average, I would also say it's child abuse due to that children are much less likely to have the reasoning skills an adult has.


    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    edited August 1
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    You say .....
    But yes, I apologize if it seemed like I was downplaying religious indoctrination. I definitely did not mean to do that. If you notice, I did clearly indicate that all hierarchical religious institutions are a bad form of psychological manipulation. 

    My reply ......

    No apology necessary my friend , I can see by your posts you are one of the good guys interested in engaging and debating fairly with others and I respect your opinions.

    Your points about manipulation are most interesting and I always found it fascinating the way humans attempt to use a variety of stategies to gain control , respect , Love etc , etc , our basic needs really ( to me ) are boiled down to food , warmth , shelter and companionship and we do anything to make sure our particular needs are fulfilled.

    I used to work as a stage magician and mentalist and I learned of a whole new world of psychological manipulation involved which is fascinating to observe when performing for Joe public , the field your working in I hope brings you much fulfillment as it seems from your posts.

    As an ex Mormon did you find it difficult to break away as in did you lose friendships , family and otherwise?

    Also did the manipulative girlfriend do much damage to you as a person or change you in anyway?
     .....if you do not wish to answer this question that’s fine

    Thank you for your response 



  • edited August 1
    Dee said:
    As an ex Mormon did you find it difficult to break away as in did you lose friendships , family and otherwise?


    Not really for that reason. I suppose I may have been lucky in that I wasn't threatened to stay in the church by someone threatening to disown me or lose a friendship over. Though I figured out most of my Mormon ex-friends weren't true friends, I don't think that has much to do with them being Mormon. Many of my non-Mormon ex-friends  I didn't consider true friends either. It seems to me most of the "friends" in my life never wanted to initiate any interactions(I was the only one, so it was very one-sided with almost every ex-friend I've had in my life), except two I had managed to find who are good friends. I realize that sounds depressing, but I am not sure of any other way to communicate that without it sounding depressing. But, long story short, I had lost all of my Mormon "friends" before I left the religion since I saw no need to continue initiating friendly actions with them if they didn't consider me a friend themselves. It seemed like they didn't, and I got the impression they may not have liked me for whatever reason. Though they were kind about appearing like they didn't want to be friends, at least that's what it looks like to me now,  in hindsight.  I didn't quite catch on they were just being polite and not actually friends until close to when I officially ended the friendships, and none of them have attempted to try to stop the ending of the friendship or re-initiate one, so that's another indicator to me they weren't interested and were just trying to be nice the whole time when I initiated desires to hang out or other things friends do.

    My family, on the otherhand, has more or less treated me the same. My mother tries to convince me to come back to the religion now and then, but other than that, nothing particularly objectionable.

    Also did the manipulative girlfriend do much damage to you as a person or change you in anyway?
    Yes. I don't mind talking about it, but given the sensitive nature of it, I am going to hide it behind a spoiler warning, since it may be triggering to anyone with issues talking about abuse and/or psychological disorders.

    I believe elsewhere on this website I mentioned having a dissociative disorder. Well, those are often due to severe trauma experienced as a child(the ex is not the source of the trauma, though in a way she was traumatic, but not the original cause of my disorder, especially since I wasn't a child at the time I was with my ex). My ability to recall memories of her is very difficult in comparison to other things I remember at the time, or I'm unable to recall completely, except for basic things. This is indicative that I, at some point, dissociated and my mind is blocking much of those memories, as happens with this disorder. There is a bit of overlap between this disorder and PTSD, but the latter is more likely to form when the trauma happens as an adult or teenager, while dissociative disorders are more likely to happen when the source-trauma happens as a child. While I've been quite open about this, I do not feel comfortable going further into the details of the trauma as a child I experienced.

    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @John_C_87

    What I'm saying is that your opinion, counts to you.

    And when it comes to how you view your individual philosophy verses Religion, your opinion, has no bearing on how religious parents are raising their kids, and aren't abusing their kids with Religion, when it apparently comes to your opinion, does it?

    No anti religious individual, has ever produced, evidence, where Religion was put on trial and convicted of Child Abuse, along with the offending parent, or parents, have they?

    Individuals can verbally handcuff Religion to human beings, and make any claim, that Religion was responsible for what an offending parent, or parents did to abuse their own kids, or the kid, or kids from another family? 

    It's a convenient claim to make, from the impersonal confines of one's own keyboard? 

    Apparently cold words, on the internet, carry the same value, that actual cash does? 

    Just because, they want their anti religious opinion, to carry the same value? 

    I'm pro family, pro kid, and pro children.

    And from the educational perspective, that the anti religious crowd, has taught me, through their repetitive anti religious opinions, and teachings, the anti religious individuals, appear to be staunch believers of their peddled anti religious rhetoric?

    It makes one wonder, just exactly how "pro family, pro kid, or children," are the anti religious crowd, when it comes to their anti religious philosophies? 



    Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1951 Pts
    I will start off by saying that I strongly dislike religion as a concept. I am okay with people believing whatever they want, but I find the beliefs to be ridiculous and illogical. Ever since I was 6 and first encountered the concept of religion, I thought that it was nothing more than adults playing toys, and I still have that conviction. Religion is for people who never ideologically grew up.

    That said, I do not think that you can consider an act of persuasion "abuse", no matter how persistent it is. You can consider an act of coercion "abuse", so if the parent tells their child, "Go to the Church tomorrow, or I will punish you", then that is pretty close to being an abuse. But if the parent tells the child, "If you do not believe in God, you will burn in hell", then it is not really a coercion, since the threat is not implied to be executed by the parent. It is more similar to a North Korean dissident parent telling their child, "If you do not censor your own speech, you will end up in a labor camp" - however misguided in the former case it is, the place it is coming from is the same.

    I have never had the problem of being persuaded into religion, since my parents are unapologetic atheists and, in general, taught me to be very skeptical of all ideologies a lot of people believe in. But I did grow up in a very conservative post-Soviet society in which the vast majority of people had very outdated ideas. I was regularly attacked for my anti-authoritarian views. But I never wanted to censor those ideas; I simply learned to rely on my own mind and never let someone's authority affect my judgment. This, I think, is what children in religious families should learn as well, and we can teach them that through awareness campaigns, public discussions and other non-invasive means.
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist

    Thank you for that I appreciate you sharing 
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    You say .....That said, I do not think that you can consider an act of persuasion "abuse", no matter how persistent it is.

    My reply .....I certainly think to tell children daily they will roast in hell for the most minor infractions of Christian  teachings is abusive behavior and takes many a lifetime to get over such is the trauma. I lived in a society that was totally dominated by the Catholic Church and wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy , outsiders always brush away people such as me with throwaway comments like “ oh it couldn’t have been that bad etc etc ,” which is totally unfair to say the least.The church in my country is now a toothless dog as the people had enough and would not  tolerate it any more .

    Persuasion is a peculiar choice of words you use , to persuade me you must have a persuasive argument , religions used indoctrination ......indoctrination

    /ɪnˌdɒktrɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

    noun

    1. the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically."
    This is the total opposite of persuasion as you use it unless you’re using it in the negative sense which would indeed be indoctrination 



    You say .......You can consider an act of coercion "abuse", so if the parent tells their child, "Go to the Church tomorrow, or I will punish you", then that is pretty close to being an abuse

    My reply ......Yes 

    You say ......But if the parent tells the child, "If you do not believe in God, you will burn in hell", then it is not really a coercion, since the threat is not implied to be executed by the parent. I

    My reply.....So a child lying sleepless in bed at night terrified at eternal hellfire has not been mentally abused?
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 2
    @MayCaesar

    I appreciate my parents efforts when it came to Religion, because it taught me a lot about, Religion, and them.

    The Church is about family, just like family is about family.

    The Church's I've seen, have helped the homeless, and the needy.

    So enjoy your word's.

    "I will start off by saying that I strongly dislike religion as a concept. I am okay with people believing whatever they want, but I find the beliefs to be ridiculous and illogical. Ever since I was 6 and first encountered the concept of religion, I thought that it was nothing more than adults playing toys, and I still have that conviction. Religion is for people who never ideologically grew up."



  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 2
    @Plaffelvohfen

    If I didn't know any better, your argument seems to come across, like borderline bigotry?

    "Now, the problem I think, may arise when indoctrinated people reproduce, as I think indoctrinated ideas/beliefs tend to spread via this same abusive method. An indoctrinated mind is a broken mind, a tainted mind, it has assimilated not only the belief but also the tainted method by which he/she came to hold that belief and is bound to perpetuate the same method with their own offspring as they do not know better because they are themselves indoctrinated, it's a vicious circle... "

    Now if an individual, takes a step back from your above mindset, this observation comes to mind:

    Couldn't the internet be utilized by some, in a sense as their own indoctrination device, in a way?

    Maybe like a pro athiest, or thiest, indoctrination device? 




    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Dee
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    To the anti religious individuals:

    Your opinion, counts to you.

    And when it comes to how you view your individual philosophy verses Religion, your opinion, has no bearing on how religious parents are raising their kids, and aren't abusing their kids with Religion, when it apparently comes to your opinion, does it?

    No anti religious individual, has ever produced, evidence, where Religion was put on trial and convicted of Child Abuse, along with the offending parent, or parents, have they?

    Individuals can verbally handcuff Religion to human beings, and make any claim, that Religion was responsible for what an offending parent, or parents did to abuse their own kids, or the kid, or kids from another family? 

    It's a convenient claim to make, from the impersonal confines of one's own keyboard? 

    Apparently cold words, on the internet, carry the same value, that actual cash does? 

    Just because, they want their anti religious opinion, to carry the same value? 

    I'm pro family, pro kid, and pro children.

    And from the educational perspective, that the anti religious crowd, has taught me, through their repetitive anti religious opinions, and teachings, the anti religious individuals, appear to be staunch believers of their peddled anti religious rhetoric?

    It makes one wonder, just exactly how "pro family, pro kid, or children," are the anti religious crowd, when it comes to their anti religious philosophies?  
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Dee

  • Let me ask you the following, do you or do you not see these as cases of abuse like a good number of us do, including the Judges that convicted the Parents of degrees of murder and/or manslaughter?

    Ian Lundman, age 11, died May 9, 1989, in Minneapolis, Minnesota of medically untreated juvenile onset diabetes. His mother and stepfather, as Christian Scientists, had the boy treated by a church practitioner instead of a medical doctor. Ian died in a diabetic coma. http://ethics.iit.edu/EEL/Lundman.pdf
    Neil Beagley, age 15 died June in Oregon 2008. He had a urinary tract blockage that could have been corrected by a fairly simple catheterization. It wasn’t corrected though, because Neil’s parents had taught him that God, not man, should cure disease if it is to be cured at all. http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132

    Matthew Swan, age 16 months, died of spinal meningitis in 1977 in Detroit, Michigan. His parents, Doug and Rita Swan, both lifelong Christian Scientists, retained Christian Science practitioners for spiritual "treatments."

    Christian Science contends that illness is an illusion caused by faulty beliefs, and that prayer heals by replacing bad thoughts with good ones. https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Victims/matthew.html
    Austin Sprout was only 16 years old and his parents believed that their faith alone would heal him even though five years earlier, Brian Sprout, Austin's father, died of Sepsis after he refused medical care thinking that his faith alone was enough to make him well. The Sprout family are members of a church called The General Assembly Church Of The Fist Born, a church which is known for practicing faith healing.

    Brandi Bellew, who remarried after the death of her husband Brian as well as her husband Russell, faced second degree manslaughter charges after the death of Austin. http://www.angelizdsplace.com/child163.htm.
    William Hermanson, 42, and his 38-year-old wife Christine were convicted in the death of their daughter Amy, who died at home in 1986 of diabetes (only 7 years old) after they relied on prayer for her recovery instead of seeking medical attention.
    Robyn Twitchell, age two, died in April, 1986, in Boston, Massachusetts, of a bowel obstruction. A simple operation to remove the twisting of the bowel would have most likely saved Robyn's life. Robyn was seriously ill over a five day period; he was in severe pain, vomiting intermittently and he had serious difficulty eating and sleeping. The parents, David and Ginger Twitchell, contacted a church practitioner the first day of Robyn's illness. The practitioner treated the boy's serious medical illness only by prayer. Subsequently, Robyn's illness became "much worse": he was shaking and vomiting and then became unresponsive. Still the parents and the practitioner did not seek medical help, preferring instead to use prayer as the only treatment.
    I will stop here but there are multiple incidences of these cases. You can find more in the following references and probably more  from there on:


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • ZeusAres,

    I do not think TKDB has a explanation in basic principle why refusing of medical practice is not an abuse. The biggest legal hurtle is the legal precedent of how charging a doctor with murder is not the same as malpractice in united state by consitution.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch