This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new

Docs remove children from bogan homes based on child abuse claims all the time.

But, look my main point is, that when religious teaching goes to the extreme, it can cause long term harm, this is a form of child abuse. Taking advantage of a child's under developed mind, and filling it with garbage is wrong in my opinion.

As I said its a fine line, and it's impossible to know from the outside except in extreme cases when this line is being crossed. I have heard an interview with a lady who was sexually molested by a priest as a child, however she claims the churches teachings of hell caused more long term grief in her life than the sexual abuse.
 
But, look my main point is, that when religious teaching goes to the extreme, it can cause long term harm, this is a form of child abuse. Taking advantage of a child's under developed mind, and filling it with garbage is wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Now that you are using the word extreme, I agree with you. That is a comedown from your previous statement that "religion is evil", implying all of it is. That's all I'm saying, that extremes of anything is bad, but there is a point where most things can be taken in moderation without damage and with benefit.
 

I am not coming down from my position which was that the foundational beliefs of most religions (including Christianity) are evil.

And In practise, they lead a lot of people to do evil things, and many evil things such as indoctrinating children and threatening them with torture and hell fire unless they believe you are condoned in our society. It's impossible to know the extent from the outside, but it would be going on, and I didn't say only the extreme cases are bad, I said the extreme cases are the only ones that are obvious.

You can look at the beheadings and suicide bombings and say they are the work of evil people, But some of the blame must fall on the indoctrination that a lot of these people had from a young age, without it, the adults would not have been as willing.
 
And In practise, they lead a lot of people to do evil things, and many evil things such as indoctrinating children and threatening them with torture and hell fire unless they believe you are condoned in our society.
Click to expand...

I was brought up in a Methodist household and I never had anything of that. I think you are condemning a lot of people because of the acts of a few. It's a biased view to say the least.
 
Hey Sir R

So I once got into a bit of a philosophical debate with a Fundamental Christian preacher...out there stuff, young earth, Intelligent design, faith healing the whole box and dice.

If you don't mind I'm going to ask you the same question I asked him in relation to "indoctrination" vs "child rearing".

(remember that this guy was a preacher as well).

The decision around faith and living a spiritual life is a complex decision that for some people encompasses their entire life. Here we are as a bunch of adults debating concepts that are challenging to our adult and developed minds....

So at what age can a minor truly make a conscious and informed decision to follow a particular faith or ideology? Is there a point that is "too young"?

If you're interested his response was 5 years old.

Cheers

Sir O
 

Hi Sir O,

I don't think religion should be taught in State schools. Nor do I think "anti religion" should be taught.

If people choose to send their children to a religious school then they have to accept that religion would be taught.

But unless you want to get into the homes of everyone in the country, eradicating religious "education" of children in the home is impossible, so what you or I or Value Collector think is irrelevant in this matter. Parents will do what they want, like it or not.
 

You didn't answer my question. The question is not about anyone else's actions whether that is "indoctrination" or "child-rearing", "state sponsored religious education" or whatever. The question is about the decision of a minor to consciously decide to believe in a certain philosophy. What age do you think?

Cheers

Sir O
 

I think it's been determined that peoples brains run more on hormones than logic up to the age of about 20, but a lot have done some pretty silly things by that age, mostly not concerned with religion.

So if you want an answer I would say 20. What do you think ?
 

My thoughts are relevant only to my own spawnlings but your number is actually higher than mine.

So now we come down to boiling the frog, or in other words, what is "extreme" and therefore indoctrination and child abuse (those kids of Sharrouf holding severed heads comes to mind) and what is not "extreme".

It's all too difficult to point to a place and say, this is extreme, but that thing there, which is almost the same, that is not. We are all going to be different, and how dare you tell me where it should be and how I should raise my kids, damn big brother what is this 1984, all pigs are equal!!! /sarcasm

Can you therefore see that indoctrination of any degree is a very slippery slope indeed, "extreme" or "moderate" and why some would believe that it is essentially child abuse?

I personally believe that teaching kids to think is far more important than teaching kids to think a certain way.

Cheers
Sir O
 
Can you therefore see that indoctrination of any degree is a very slippery slope indeed, "extreme" or "moderate" and why some would believe that it is essentially child abuse?
Click to expand...

I think it's a very slippery slope to try and define "indoctrination". Some people think that children are being indoctrinated into a "Left" agenda at school by a biased social science or history syllabus.

Fully agree with you though that teaching children how to think in a rational way is probably being neglected, although it's been a while since I've had anything to do with the school system.
 
SirRumpole said:
I was brought up in a Methodist household and I never had anything of that. I think you are condemning a lot of people because of the acts of a few. It's a biased view to say the least.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that none of the Methodists church's foundational doctrines are immoral?

or are you just saying you didn't experience any indoctrination.


SirRumpole said:
I think it's a very slippery slope to try and define "indoctrination".
.
Click to expand...

Same with any child abuse laws.

for example we can all agree on the extreme cases of violent child abuse, but there is a massive grey area hovering between giving a child a smack on the hand and whipping a child with an electrical lead, offcourse religious indoctrination is no different.

However just as society frowns on hitting children now, so it should frown on indoctrination.

I personally was smacked relatively few times growing up, But it would be silly of me to say make out that all children enjoy homes with now violence, and silly of me to encourage hitting children.
 
Value Collector said:
So are you saying that none of the Methodists church's foundational doctrines are immoral?

or are you just saying you didn't experience any indoctrination.
Click to expand...

I'm saying I did not experience indoctrination. I ceased going to church as soon as I could as I thought it was a waste of time. For a lot of people imo, church is a social club. A place that parents know their children can go and meet others in a safe environment (pedophile priests excepted. I never saw any of those either. The Ministers I had were good people).



Again, what are the "extremes" . If a parent wants their child to see the difference between good and evil and wants to use lessons in the Bible as an example of both, that's fine by me. If they want to go into "you are a sinner unless you take Jesus into your life", that's heading towards extreme in my book. I'm sure other people have different views of extremes, but that's just human nature.
 
I've not yet seen anyone disprove the premise that, although religion can definitely be held to account for some bad behaviours, there is no good/decent/productive/selfless (insert your word of choice) behaviour that is peculiar and exclusive to religious people.

That's largely the basis on which I reject it plus a loathing for anything which replaces critical thinking with mindless dogma.

Rumpole, reasonable point about people finding enjoyment in a social sense in a church, but again, there are plenty of social opportunities available without the need to include religion in it.
 

Agreed

That's largely the basis on which I reject it plus a loathing for anything which replaces critical thinking with mindless dogma.
Click to expand...

Agreed again. You and I can live without it, but if people voluntarily want to engage in religion without hurting others, then I don't think they should be labelled as "evil".

Rumpole, reasonable point about people finding enjoyment in a social sense in a church, but again, there are plenty of social opportunities available without the need to include religion in it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but people tend to congregate with other people who share their views. I like playing golf so I go to a golf club, I don't find anything in religion that interests me, so I don't go to church. If religious people don't criticise my club, I don't see why I should criticise theirs if they are not affecting me.
 

That's an interesting response Sir R, and I've already said that where do you draw the line in the sand? People get very emotional when their kids are involved...I know I do. When we see examples like Sharrouf's kids, it's impossible not to feel for those kids. As a Father myself I am horrified about what kind of person would do that kind of damage to a child. I'd like to see those kids in a better environment, but what do we do...take away the children of people who hold extremist views and "re-educate" them within our Foster Care System?

Just look at something as simple as a spank.

*You're taking away my rights as a Parent!!!!
*I was belted as a child and it never did me no harm!!!!
*Bloody nanny state!!!!!
*Cultural discrimination!!!!!
*Etc Etc.

IMO spanking is a lot less damaging than indoctrination.....wiki definition.
As a pejorative term, indoctrination implies forcibly or coercively causing people to act and think on the basis of a certain ideology.[3] Some secular critics believe that all religions indoctrinate their adherents, as children, and the accusation is made in the case of religious extremism.[4] Sects such as Scientology use personality tests and peer pressures to indoctrinate new members.[5] Some religions have commitment ceremonies for children 13 years and younger, such as Bar Mitzvah, Confirmation, and Shichi-Go-San. In Buddhism, temple boys are encouraged to follow the faith while young.[citation needed] Critics of religion, such as Richard Dawkins, maintain that the children of religious parents are often unfairly indoctrinated.[6]

I guess the question to me revolves around this point...when we see something as obviously wrong (sharrouf's kids), do we simply wash our hands of it because its a sensitive, complex issue and its hard...or do we act?

Cheers

Sir O
 
I guess the question to me revolves around this point...when we see something as obviously wrong (sharrouf's kids), do we simply wash our hands of it because its a sensitive, complex issue and its hard...or do we act?
Click to expand...

If Sharrouf and his son return to this country, the child should be taken away from his parents and never see them again. He should be deradicalised with foster parents who have no connection with his religion. Sounds tough , but it's in the child's interests.
 
Pager said:
I just cannot understands how human beings can be so cruel and the cruellest of them all seem to be driven by and justify what they do with there Religion, yet what does this God do to stop it?.
Click to expand...

Absolutely nothing – and he never has done to stop horrible things from happening to decent people, and he never will. Right down through the centuries we see examples of big talk from this god who claims to be loving and righteous and compassionate, but never any action to back it up when the chips are down and somebody needs help. And yet his supporters turn a blind eye to this fact so they can continue with the outdated nonsense about their imaginary friend who’s so righteous and powerful and compassionate.
Surely an aid worker in the Middle East, there to help people less fortunate than himself, would be worthy of some help from this god who Christians believe to be so compassionate and powerful. Surely thousands of innocent people trapped on a mountain in Iraq and facing certain death from thirst or hunger or deranged, murdering lunatics, were deserving of some help from the god they worshipped. Surely millions of Jews caught up in the madness of the Nazis in Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s, were deserving of some help from this compassionate god who they worship.
But no – nothing except talk and perpetuation of the ‘compassionate and caring’ myth. It’s pretty damn pathetic.
This was one of the many ridiculous lies perpetuated by the religion I was brought up in, that eventually caused me to turn away from Christianity.
 
Sir Osisofliver said:
I guess the question to me revolves around this point...when we see something as obviously wrong (sharrouf's kids), do we simply wash our hands of it because its a sensitive, complex issue and its hard...or do we act?

Cheers

Sir O
Click to expand...

We roll back the post modernism nonsense about nothing is absolute truth and re-establish the central theme of core values, or for that matter the expulsion of core values, that allows us to have a voice and a say on who, what, when, where and how. It doesn't need a threat of laconic conflict as an excuse to do what we all know has to be done and what our enemies within can't believe we aren't deploying already.

My concern is the way we are ignoring an heard of elephants in the kitchen in the hope they won't stampede and break some china cups....eventually their sheer weight will collapse the house unless tamed and sent outside to play.
 
A WARNING FROM DICK SMITH:
You may be aware that "Dick Smith" chain franchise stores are being pressured by the Islamic Council of Australia to gain 'Halal Certification' otherwise they will be proscribed and banned from Muslim custom. This is their response:

A MESSAGE FROM DICK SMITH.
"We at Dick Smith's have received a number of letters from people asking if we will be putting the Muslim Halal logo on our food.

To acquire Halal certification, payment is required to the endorsing body (the Islamic Council) and involves a number of site inspections of both our growers and processors in order to ensure that our practices comply with the conditions of Halal certification.

It is important to note that this does not reflect the quality of the food being processed or sold – it only means that the products are approved as being prepared in accordance with the traditions of the Muslim faith.

We are aware of an increasing number of large companies both in Australia and overseas, such as Kraft and Cadbury, who have obtained accreditation to use the Halal logo. We don’t believe they have done this because of any religious commitment but rather for purely commercial reasons. Perhaps these large organisations can afford to do this.

While we have a choice however, we would prefer to avoid unnecessarily increasing the cost of our products in order to pay for Halal accreditation when this money would be better spent continuing to support important charitable causes where assistance is greatly needed.

We point out that we have never been asked to put a Christian symbol (or any other religious symbol) on our food requiring that we send money to a Christian organisation for the right to do so.

Others would add that money paid to ANY Muslim 'organisation' (and you had better believe it: these people ARE 'organised') can easily find its way into the hands of Islamic extremist-fanatics and murderers, irrespective of assurances to the contrary.

What other assurances do we accept from Muslims?

Oh, that's right,
'Islam is a religion of PEACE'!

How less Australian can companies get, than to place money into the hands of those who seek to exploit us?"

This is an example of how the leaders of Muslims in Aus/NZ are bullying large commercial organisations (especially in the food industry) into paying what is no more than blatant extortion money. The amazing part is that these weak-kneed organisations (Cadbury/ Schweppes/ Nestles/ Kraft etc.) actually pay the large sums demanded by these self-appointed religious bureaucrats. Of course, the manufacturers promptly pass this levy on to unwitting consumers as cost increases. Next time you buy a block of Cadbury's chocolate, look for the Halal Certification seal on the wrapper. So, regardless of your own religious faith, you end up subsidizing Islam.

The Council also controls the Muslim voter bloc which, as yet, does not have sufficient critical mass to make a difference - but give them time.

Several state jurisdictions are under pressure to adopt or permit Sharia Law in Marriage, Family and Property matters and some, under the delusion that they are being progressively liberal, are permitting this. This has already happened in some local authorities in the U.K.

Google the U.K. Education Department's current investigation into the conduct of Muslim-run schools in the Birmingham area of England.

How many more warnings do people need?
http://morningmail.org/dick-smith-foods-reject-halal/
 
If the Muslims want Halal food, I suggest they open their own supermarkets and leave the rest of us alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...