Is Religion an abuse of childhood?

eviltwin · 22-06-2014 04:09PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

You see this is the problem with it.

You can have a debate about someone's views, their choice of glasses, their political opinions, even their religious views because all of those things are changeable.

When you start having debates about gay people, you're basically getting into a debate about someone's right to exist or be part of society based on attributed that they cannot change and are not a lifestyle choice.

So, it really enters the same sphere as having a debate about black people, white people or asian people. Or taking a strong attitude against people with blue eyes or something.

That's why it's a very different type of topic and why debates will end up in accusations of homophobia.

That all depends on the person. There are people out there who wouldn't even want to talk to a gay person, who would disown a friend or family member if they came out and yes that is homophobia. But equally there are people who don't personally agree with same sex relationships who will support and defend the rights of gay people. I've seen it myself with my own family, they don't like the idea of it but they will be out marching for marriage equality because they can see the bigger picture. I don't consider them homophobic at all.

SpaceTime · 22-06-2014 04:13PM

eviltwin wrote: »

That all depends on the person. There are people out there who wouldn't even want to talk to a gay person, who would disown a friend or family member if they came out and yes that is homophobia. But equally there are people who don't personally agree with same sex relationships who will support and defend the rights of gay people. I've seen it myself with my own family, they don't like the idea of it but they will be out marching for marriage equality because they can see the bigger picture. I don't consider them homophobic at all.

Sorry, but actually it's all homophobia it's just different degrees of it.

It's no different from people who go "Oh, I'm not racist.. I just don't like mixed marriages".

You can't just redefine homophobia as 'extreme homophobia'. It covers a whole range of attitudes and behaviours towards gay people. While that might not sit well with some people who are just a 'little bit homophobic' so they don't want to be labeled as such (and probably even includes some gay people in that too). That's the reality of the word - it covers from the mild to the extreme.

I know a few people who just like to make the odd comment about black people and would claim they mean no harm by it. However, they're racists. They're just not extreme racists, more the 'casual racists'. However, they're still racists.

Corkfeen · 22-06-2014 04:18PM

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't personally define it that way but that is just me, everyone has something they don't like or agree with and once you aren't actively trying to restrict the rights of those people I think you are entitled to those views. Anyway my point was really that seeing people with an opposing view called homophobic all the time gets frustrating, its ruining the flow of what can be a good discussion.

I would agree to an extent but the poster does seem to think anti homophobia campaigns shouldn't occur. Also sidestepping every question they can which is raising my suspicions somewhat. Just being exceedingly aggressive about my rather mild points tbh.

SpaceTime · 22-06-2014 04:21PM

I'd agree that there's no point in just shouting "homophobe" to stall a discussion. However, I just think it's a subject that's necessarily any more open to debate than sexist attitudes towards women or racist attitudes towards other races is.

Society's attitudes are changing and the topic needs to be discussed that's for sure. However, I just think we've gone past the point (in most of the developed world anyway) where gay people need to keep arguing for a right to exist. That's kind of where we were until a few years ago.

The issue is that when people are debating these topics, they're actually debating a % of the population's right to be open about a big part of who they are. When you think about it, that's really not something that should be a topic of debate at all. If they've a right to exist, they should not really have to keep justifying that right or having it curtailed in certain areas of life.

I think though if you don't call it out, the mild versions of homophobia can result in stuff like bullying of a kid being turned a blind eye to etc etc etc.

I'll probably annoy a lot of you but I really just see this topic like binary 1 vs 0. Either the rights exist or they don't.

What I'm seeing are debates that just remind me of the US deep south in the 1950s where African Americans had rights, but not complete ones and only kind of as second class citizens and these rights were open to public debate as people were just a little uncomfortable with them.

Or how women had the right to vote in the early 20th century but subject to a whole load of conditionality and debates about whether they were worthy of that or not.

To me anyway, that's precisely how I think we're going to be looking back on this period of history when it comes to gay rights.

Wereghost · 24-06-2014 01:34AM

Is religion an abuse of childhood?

I think it might be a time-delayed abuse of other people's kids, if yours grows up to be a real a-hole about it.

Vivisectus · 24-06-2014 11:00AM

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's not a line of reasoning: the example was given of children being threatened with hellfire by parents to ensure compliance and I added that some parents ensure compliance by using violence, the threat of violence or some other form of punishment. I'm not advocating or approving any particular approach but stating that these forms are employed by parents, regardless of their religion.
If eternal torture is an aspect and possibility of each religion, then it should be taught. There is no way to legislate against a parent from telling their child they may go to hell.

Your posts seem to follow the following line:

1: You were not overtly threatened with hellfire yourself, which, while definitely present, was reserved for "bad people", which did not unduly upset you.

2: There are forms of abuse other than the threat of eternal torture

In conclusion, parents will mess up their kids somehow if they are so inclined, so there is no reason to dwell on the idea that perhaps the tendency of religions to include these kinds of threats of unimaginably excessive punishment, often for behaviours which modern society no longer considers to be strictly taboo, means that perhaps we should be careful about how we expose children to it.

...which incidentally is all anyone was advocating, it having been pointed out already that legislating against religious indoctrination would be difficult as it was bound to be either so vague as to be ineffective or draconian...

But porn, THAT we should worry about. Because an "unhealthy view of sexuality" is what we should all be concerned about instead, in a thread about religious indoctrination and it’s potential for, and even tendency towards, child-abuse. Would this be because of the healthy attitudes religions promote?

Almost universally, sex is portrayed in religious doctrine as degrading and sinful, especially to women, unless "sanctified" by marriage: any expression of sexuality that does not happen in a long-term heterosexual relationship is dangerous, unhealthy, and demeaning...

But hey, it is a great distraction from the actual point, isn’t it?

lazybones32 · 27-06-2014 11:51AM

Vivisectus wrote: »

Your posts seem to follow the following line:

1: You were not overtly threatened with hellfire yourself, which, while definitely present, was reserved for "bad people", which did not unduly upset you.

2: There are forms of abuse other than the threat of eternal torture

In conclusion, parents will mess up their kids somehow if they are so inclined, so there is no reason to dwell on the idea that perhaps the tendency of religions to include these kinds of threats of unimaginably excessive punishment, often for behaviours which modern society no longer considers to be strictly taboo, means that perhaps we should be careful about how we expose children to it.

...which incidentally is all anyone was advocating, it having been pointed out already that legislating against religious indoctrination would be difficult as it was bound to be either so vague as to be ineffective or draconian...

But porn, THAT we should worry about. Because an "unhealthy view of sexuality" is what we should all be concerned about instead, in a thread about religious indoctrination and it’s potential for, and even tendency towards, child-abuse. Would this be because of the healthy attitudes religions promote?

Almost universally, sex is portrayed in religious doctrine as degrading and sinful, especially to women, unless "sanctified" by marriage: any expression of sexuality that does not happen in a long-term heterosexual relationship is dangerous, unhealthy, and demeaning...

But hey, it is a great distraction from the actual point, isn’t it?

I commend your ability to read and summarise. *slow, sarcastic applause*

Did I introduce the topic of sexuality to the discussion? Someone else did and questioned me. But somehow - despite Mods taking part in the discussion - you come to the conclusion, that I have distracted the topic.
And in (wrongfully) criticising me for derailing the topic by introducing sexuality, you launch your own little tirade* thus adding to the 'problem' you claim to be seeking to correct.

*your second-last paragraph

py2006 · 27-06-2014 12:30PM

Sorry folks, I had forgotten I started this thread. Some interesting responses, I will read through them as the day goes by. (between the football of course)

Vivisectus · 27-06-2014 01:43PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

I commend your ability to read and summarise. *slow, sarcastic applause*

Did I introduce the topic of sexuality to the discussion? Someone else did and questioned me. But somehow - despite Mods taking part in the discussion - you come to the conclusion, that I have distracted the topic.
And in (wrongfully) criticising me for derailing the topic by introducing sexuality, you launch your own little tirade* thus adding to the 'problem' you claim to be seeking to correct.

*your second-last paragraph

I am not terribly concerned about the thread topic at all. It is the way you and a lot of people happily dismiss the threatening of very young children with a fate worse than death with a sort of mental shrug on the one hand... but porn! Now THAT gets them concerned and worried. Because Kids Could Get The Wrong Idea About Sex...

And you have indeed expressed both things in your posts, no matter if you started that particular line of discussion or not.

And yes, it makes it especially poignant to me that this happens in a thread about religion, which when dealing with sex seems to focus mostly on how it is bad, dangerous, shameful and sinful unless expressed exactly the way they want it to be, to the detriment of any unlucky kid who happens to be gay, just to pick one particularly difficult situation.

Do you see my point? It is a bit like watching a 7-year old play a game about mass-murder without anyone minding, only to have it taken away the moment it features nudity.

lazybones32 · 27-06-2014 06:36PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

I am not terribly concerned about the thread topic at all. It is the way you and a lot of people happily dismiss the threatening of very young children with a fate worse than death with a sort of mental shrug on the one hand... but porn! Now THAT gets them concerned and worried. Because Kids Could Get The Wrong Idea About Sex...

And you have indeed expressed both things in your posts, no matter if you started that particular line of discussion or not.

And yes, it makes it especially poignant to me that this happens in a thread about religion, which when dealing with sex seems to focus mostly on how it is bad, dangerous, shameful and sinful unless expressed exactly the way they want it to be, to the detriment of any unlucky kid who happens to be gay, just to pick one particularly difficult situation.

Do you see my point? It is a bit like watching a 7-year old play a game about mass-murder without anyone minding, only to have it taken away the moment it features nudity.

But who has been threatening children with hell? Dawkins said so, so it must be true? Like I wrote and you read, I was never threatened with hell. It was neither instilled at home, school or church to the degree you are proposing.
If you were from a generation earlier, then you may have experienced it but those days are gone.

Nowhere did I write that sex is bad. I don't think choreographed pornography is suitable for children as it is not realistic; especially during their formative years. (I surely don't need to provide examples?) Sex is not bad, neither is the human body.
If you are not a Catholic, you are not bound by Catholic teaching - this was already expressed earlier. The teaching of the Church is for its members. If people think all theists are crazy and deluded, why pay so much attention to what we live and hold?

Also, I have highlighted elsewhere the ridiculous stance of the Irish Censorship Board: War of the Worlds with T Cruise has people being disintegrated by a hostile alien force and the survivors having their blood sucked out while alive, and this was given a 12 rating, yet a woman's breasts will make a film 18. This means, you'll be entitled to have sex before lawfully looking at breasts on screen.

Vivisectus · 28-06-2014 01:39PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

But who has been threatening children with hell? Dawkins said so, so it must be true? Like I wrote and you read, I was never threatened with hell. It was neither instilled at home, school or church to the degree you are proposing.
If you were from a generation earlier, then you may have experienced it but those days are gone.

I am only a Dawkins fan when he speaks of biology, but I do understand his point of view. You are sort of underlining that when you basically state "Ah come now, we hardly ever do that stuff anymore"...

And you said yourself that there most certainly was a hell, just that it was for bad people and that it did not bother you. I will come back to the "those days are gone" statement later. It has been on my mind lately.

Nowhere did I write that sex is bad. I don't think choreographed pornography is suitable for children as it is not realistic;

I wonder what "realistic porno" is going to look like according to you and if you would feel much differently about it? Can you give me an example of realistic erotica that you would be comfortable showing to kids?

especially during their formative years. (I surely don't need to provide examples?)

Actually I would love some examples of psychological harm done by pornography. Everyone always takes it as read that it is bad for the young - including me! - but somehow I fail to remember any examples where we can say "Porn caused this!".

Do you have any?

Sex is not bad, neither is the human body.

... as long as it happens within the narrow confines of what the catholic church decides is acceptable. I am not talking about your personal point of view here, you understand. The RCC most definitely does consider sex bad if it does not conform to their rules, which are a whole lot narrower than those most people hold. This causes problems.

If you are not a Catholic, you are not bound by Catholic teaching - this was already expressed earlier. The teaching of the Church is for its members. If people think all theists are crazy and deluded, why pay so much attention to what we live and hold?

The short answer is, because the RCC does not keep it's bigotry, it's atavistic taboo system and it's emphasis on paternalism inside church walls.

For starters I do not really think what you say here applies within the discussion about religion and abuse: children do not get a choice. It is not really feasible for a child raised by Catholics to choose not to be one, so if we look at it from the point of view of child abuse your point is moot.

Taking a wider views that does not just include children, and I assume that was what you were getting at, have you ever heard of the term "privilege"?

It is a very interesting idea that seems to be popular among sociologists and other humanities-oriented studies lately. It is often abused and this can lead to ridiculous nonsense, but it is also quite revealing

You say "those days are over", and when I talk to (birth) Catholics, they tend to say that a lot. And they are... sort of, for you. Because you are comfortable in the set of behaviors that the catholic church sets for you, and never have to touch the edges.

You don't have to worry about finding a school for your kids that does not teach them someone else's religion. You don't have to grow up being the only kid not doing their confirmation. You don't have to worry about being excluded because of your sexuality, or worry about being unable to express your sexual orientation because you could lose your job - it is legal in this country to be fired from a catholic organisation (such as 90% of our schools) for being gay. Chances are you are comfortable with the laws on euthanasia and abortion. People don't question your morality because of your (lack of) religious affiliation.

Chances are those things seem like minor inconveniences to you. This is because you enjoy the privilege of being one of the majority that has the most influence on the organization of this society. Most of it is more or less designed for you.

But to people who never chose to be a part of the Catholic faith and who still have to live in a society designed for a majority of which they are not a member, those things really stack up.

Also, I have highlighted elsewhere the ridiculous stance of the Irish Censorship Board: War of the Worlds with T Cruise has people being disintegrated by a hostile alien force and the survivors having their blood sucked out while alive, and this was given a 12 rating, yet a woman's breasts will make a film 18. This means, you'll be entitled to have sex before lawfully looking at breasts on screen.

Amazing huh? I always wonder why killing someone is somehow considered less bad than having sex with someone... or at least, less threatening.

py2006 · 29-06-2014 12:35PM

Some interesting posts here. Although, very few opinions on the question I asked in the OP. Do you think Dawkins was right in saying that religious teachings are an 'abuse of childhood'?

I know there has been a lot of posts on here about homophobia and while we all know the churches view on it, has it really been taught in schools? But moving away from homophobia, is religion in general a non nonsensical thing to be teaching to children?

Brian Shanahan · 29-06-2014 02:29PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Do you know what the Christian stance on homosexuality is? I guess you don't (and don't want to know) but will you still criticise them for 'preaching' what you incorrectly accuse them of?

Depends on what denomination you are talking about. I know of two: The catholic position is that homosexual activities or the allowing or endorsing of same is sinful, and that anyone who has homosexual tendencies is an "intrinsically disordered" person who needs such feelings to be purged. I am of the opinion that the "love the sinner, hate the sin" line the church advocates re homosexuality is actually worse than the likes of the Westboro Baptist line, which at least has the honesty to be open about it's anti-homosexuality crusade.
The anglican/episcopalian line is muddled, in Britain, Ireland, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand most of the communion is of the opinion that the prohibition against homosexuality is a barbaric throwback to less civilised times (which it is), but are too lilly livered to actually come out and fully accept homosexuality as a valid trait within humanity. Then you've got the opposing viewpoint which is mainly centred in the African anglican communities, but with a significant following in the UK and the former "white" colonies, which is succinctly expressed by the phrase "kill all gheys!"

I don't know what "proper sex-ed" is. Whatever model they are using either side of Ireland doesn't seem to work, seeing as teen pregnancies are still pretty high, despite the education and often free distribution of contraceptives.

Teen pregnancy is too high because there is still an over-emphasis on chastity-only education, a bad mouthing and lax education as to the proper use of contraceptives and a church lead restrictive inculcation of a twisted morality re sex and sexuality. Where proper sex education is practised, including contraceptives, teen pregnancy is very low, for example in the Netherlands. (I'll provide links later, have to go).

Peanut Butter Jelly · 29-06-2014 03:55PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

I don't know what "proper sex-ed" is.

Newsflash: It's not telling kids to wait until they're married to have it.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Whatever model they are using either side of Ireland doesn't seem to work, seeing as teen pregnancies are still pretty high, despite the education and often free distribution of contraceptives.

I completely agree. It doesn't work.

Why? Because we're not taught what actually happens. We're told this is a penis, it gets hard during sex. This is a vagina. You put the penis here. Once a month, it gets bloody. Oh, and use a condom to stop some STD's and reduce your chances of a pregnancy.

Here's my problems with it.
1. We're not told about the feelings during sex, especially your first time.
2. I don't recall ever hearing about foreplay and why it's important.
3. We were only told the names of the STD's. Never how they were caught, what they did or how the were treated or if they could be.
4. We're told when using a condom, to roll it down on an erect penis and Bob's your uncle. We weren't told about what we could do to make sure they worked properly, like to use lube if there wasn't enough "natural" lube down there, or to use it for anal sex. Hell, we were never told about anal sex or how it's done. Speaking of that, we were never told how to prepare for sex. And only for the internet, I wouldn't know I had to switch condoms if I went from the back door to the front door.
5. There was no mention about gay sex. Either for men or women.
6. We were told the best way to avoid STD's was to wait until marriage and no other options were mentioned. Obviously, that method isn't 100% safe because if your partner didn't do that, you can still get something. I say the safest way is to both go to a testing centre when you are ready to have sex, get tested together and be completely honest about your past partners.

That mightn't make it proper sex-ed, but it would be a hell of a lot closer than it is now.

Brian Shanahan · 29-06-2014 05:41PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Depends on what denomination you are talking about. I know of two: The catholic position is that homosexual activities or the allowing or endorsing of same is sinful, and that anyone who has homosexual tendencies is an "intrinsically disordered" person who needs such feelings to be purged. I am of the opinion that the "love the sinner, hate the sin" line the church advocates re homosexuality is actually worse than the likes of the Westboro Baptist line, which at least has the honesty to be open about it's anti-homosexuality crusade.
The anglican/episcopalian line is muddled, in Britain, Ireland, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand most of the communion is of the opinion that the prohibition against homosexuality is a barbaric throwback to less civilised times (which it is), but are too lilly livered to actually come out and fully accept homosexuality as a valid trait within humanity. Then you've got the opposing viewpoint which is mainly centred in the African anglican communities, but with a significant following in the UK and the former "white" colonies, which is succinctly expressed by the phrase "kill all gheys!"

Teen pregnancy is too high because there is still an over-emphasis on chastity-only education, a bad mouthing and lax education as to the proper use of contraceptives and a church lead restrictive inculcation of a twisted morality re sex and sexuality. Where proper sex education is practised, including contraceptives, teen pregnancy is very low, for example in the Netherlands. (I'll provide links later, have to go).

Here we go. Two links, the first a study citing evidence from Advocates for Youth, a US based international teen advocacy group, and the second an editorial from a US secondary school paper (the article is better written than c. 90% of all news reports or editorials in newspapers, well done to the writer).

Brian Shanahan · 29-06-2014 05:59PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Geschwind Syndrome.

Thanked for teaching me something new, never heard of it before.

lazybones32 · 30-06-2014 04:16PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

Amazing huh? I always wonder why killing someone is somehow considered less bad than having sex with someone... or at least, less threatening.

The day's too nice to spend here, so I'll be brief:
I am not bearing responsibility for things that happened before my birth: I never was abused or threatened by any Catholic clergy member in any shape or form, so I cannot say otherwise. Neither did I ever witness a friend or classmate receive such treatment, so our experience is different.

If you didn't understand what point I was making re: pornography, say so. Or do you genuinely think I am promoting pornography for children?
I would gladly provide links but seeing as people here have trouble reading what I write, why waste my time? (Google Scholar has 59,600 links on that topic, so if you want to find it it's at your fingertips).

The Church holds that sex outside of marriage is harmful; with physical, social, personal and spiritual consequences. I have no intention of writing out these to you but the Catechism contains much more explanations.

Who's responsible for your/my kids? The Parent is the primary educator and not the school. Whether you realise it or not, your words will hold more sway on your child than anyone else's. People here on A.A, love to spout the claim of brainwashing by the RCC but, dammit, do people even know what is involved in brainwashing?

I don't view a Catholic school as the most pressing concern facing children in Ireland. A secular school, it could be argued, is impressing another person's view of Society/World on children. This could go on ad infinitum...

Cabaal · 30-06-2014 04:30PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

do people even know what is involved in brainwashing?

When it comes to religions and children,

The younger the better,
Its far easier to trick them into believing a story is real and actually happened then if you try to do the same thing with a 30 year old.

Also using fear to do this and to keep them inline works very nicely as well,

lazybones32 · 30-06-2014 06:54PM

Cabaal wrote: »

When it comes to religions and children,

The younger the better,
Its far easier to trick them into believing a story is real and actually happened then if you try to do the same thing with a 30 year old.

Also using fear to do this and to keep them inline works very nicely as well,

So...no, you don't know what's involved.
Your - and others - paranoia may be preventing you from seeing and enjoying more of life, but that's your own business.

Cabaal · 30-06-2014 10:02PM

lazybones32 wrote: »

So...no, you don't know what's involved.
Your - and others - paranoia may be preventing you from seeing and enjoying more of life, but that's your own business.

I'm well aware what's involved,
But you just keep on thinking religion in schools and indoctrination etc is just fine and dandy.... It clearly suits your world outlook

Vivisectus · 01-07-2014 09:33AM

lazybones32 wrote: »

Vivisectus wrote: »

The day's too nice to spend here, so I'll be brief:
I am not bearing responsibility for things that happened before my birth: I never was abused or threatened by any Catholic clergy member in any shape or form, so I cannot say otherwise. Neither did I ever witness a friend or classmate receive such treatment, so our experience is different.

A strange stance to take. No-one is asking you to bear responsibility as far as I am aware? We are merely asking if telling kids that breaking certain rules will cause never-ending punishment could be considered child-abuse. The answer seems to be "Yes, unless it has to do with religion".

If you didn't understand what point I was making re: pornography, say so. Or do you genuinely think I am promoting pornography for children?

Your objection to pornography, especially when seen by children, was that it was unrealistic and would lead to misleading ideas about sex, so I asked you what realistic porn would look like, and if that would be acceptable. I also asked you what acceptable erotica would look like, especially erotica suited to children.

But I guess you object to all pornography and not because of the reasons you stated!

I would gladly provide links but seeing as people here have trouble reading what I write, why waste my time? (Google Scholar has 59,600 links on that topic, so if you want to find it it's at your fingertips).

Ah, so you have an iron-clad case to support your stance, supported by reams of undeniable evidence, it is just that it is too much effort to share it? Not very convincing.

The Church holds that sex outside of marriage is harmful; with physical, social, personal and spiritual consequences. I have no intention of writing out these to you but the Catechism contains much more explanations.

Yes indeed. All sexuality expressed outside of the narrow confines of what they deem acceptable is shameful, sinful, degrading and dangerous. To agree with this is termed "Having a good attitude towards sex."

Who's responsible for your/my kids? The Parent is the primary educator and not the school. Whether you realise it or not, your words will hold more sway on your child than anyone else's. People here on A.A, love to spout the claim of brainwashing by the RCC but, dammit, do people even know what is involved in brainwashing?

If it did not matter what they told your kids at school or in church, then why do we have catholic schools and catechism for kids at all?

And yes, I do indeed know what brainwashing is. I have spent quite some time learning about different cults and how they manufacture consent. The RCC uses some of the same tricks, albeit in a less extreme way. One of the tools it uses to manufacture this consent is the fear of the consequences of dissenting. Hell is an extreme example of this.

I don't view a Catholic school as the most pressing concern facing children in Ireland. A secular school, it could be argued, is impressing another person's view of Society/World on children. This could go on ad infinitum...

So it is a concern, it is just that it is not as high on the list of concerns? Not as pressing as porn, for a start?

Also, does a school that does not include any geography in it's curriculum still teach a certain view about geography, or does it leave people to learn that for themselves?

Piliger · 02-07-2014 05:33PM

Cabaal wrote: »

When it comes to religions and children,

The younger the better,
Its far easier to trick them into believing a story is real and actually happened then if you try to do the same thing with a 30 year old.

Also using fear to do this and to keep them inline works very nicely as well,

Indeed. But the biggest and most effective factor is credibility. The victim believes things because the teller of the lies is admired and loved and respected and believed. This is of course what makes the abuse so much more vile and repugnant. Parents who should be raising their children to live their own lives and make their own choices, and teachers who should be doing the same.

lazybones32 · 02-07-2014 08:54PM

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm well aware what's involved,
But you just keep on thinking religion in schools and indoctrination etc is just fine and dandy.... It clearly suits your world outlook

Can you tell- without using Google, etc - what processes are involved in brainwashing?

I do think teaching religion in school is fine and good. It doesn't suit my world outlook, since I have no particular plan for world domination or how to control it. I guess I was far wrong to call people here paranoid...

lazybones32 · 02-07-2014 08:59PM

@ Vivisectus:

I found over 3 million hits but here's 1 of those 3,100,000, seeing as you can't do things yourself. http://www.mediawatchuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Summer-2012.pdf

Peanut Butter Jelly · 02-07-2014 09:30PM

I paid attention until I saw "Campaigning for family values in the media". I can tell from that it is not going to be independent. It's effectively a mammy's group who want to say porn is bad, blissfully unaware their sons are looking at it.

As for the "scientific" content of the piece, it's a couple of sparce quotes from one guy, who wrote a study that wasn't peer reviewed. I could find a study that proved the opposite of that study you posted, with a guy saying porn didn't affect the brain, and that's it. He has mentioned no statistics, apart from one that said 80% of people see porn accidentally for the first time which is a pile of turd.

Oh, and some of your 3,180,000 results are actually advertising porn and hook-ups, so you technically don't have 3,180,000 links backing you up.

RFOLEY1990 · 02-07-2014 09:32PM

depends, if you're a typical "Irish Catholic" these days all kids really do is make their communion and confirmation and go to mass on Christmas Eve.

strict religion that alienates kids from friends and activities however is a different story.

shruikan2553 · 02-07-2014 09:39PM

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

depends, if you're a typical "Irish Catholic" these days all kids really do is make their communion and confirmation and go to mass on Christmas Eve.

strict religion that alienates kids from friends and activities however is a different story.

Christmas Eve? I remember going once or twice on Christmas day, now that is religious abuse! My family had some idea in their head that Christmas had something to do with religion for and hour of the day.

Piliger · 02-07-2014 09:48PM

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

depends, if you're a typical "Irish Catholic" these days all kids really do is make their communion and confirmation and go to mass on Christmas Eve.

strict religion that alienates kids from friends and activities however is a different story.

I don't agree, having had a son go through the system only recently. You probably equate brain washing to intense indoctrination and forced learning of the bible etc etc etc.
No. Brainwashing abuse happens in many classes throughout the day by teachers who teach all of the subjects. Teachers who talk about god as an aside as being fact and real and in everyone's lives and body. Heads who make casual references to god, and all kinds of school events and ceremonies that make religion and religious acceptance as fact a structural part of every ceremony.
This is all classic brain washing behaviour from people and an institution that those children are taught and brought up to respect and trust.

RFOLEY1990 · 02-07-2014 10:24PM

Piliger wrote: »

I don't agree, having had a son go through the system only recently. You probably equate brain washing to intense indoctrination and forced learning of the bible etc etc etc.
No. Brainwashing abuse happens in many classes throughout the day by teachers who teach all of the subjects. Teachers who talk about god as an aside as being fact and real and in everyone's lives and body. Heads who make casual references to god, and all kinds of school events and ceremonies that make religion and religious acceptance as fact a structural part of every ceremony.
This is all classic brain washing behaviour from people and an institution that those children are taught and brought up to respect and trust.

if you feel like that why didn't you request your son be exempt from religion?

or better yet, explain when he got home that the bible is a fairy tale

Piliger · 02-07-2014 11:08PM

RFOLEY1990 wrote: »

if you feel like that why didn't you request your son be exempt from religion?

or better yet, explain when he got home that the bible is a fairy tale

What I did is not relevant. What is relevant is the brain washing that goes on by the schools in tandem with parents who do their bit at home.

Is Religion an abuse of childhood?

Comments