Should teaching eternal hell be a crime?

[Revoltingest]

And of course it isn't. But it can be a part of parental abuse. It does happen, albeit fortunately not very often (but alas, not too rarely either).
Revoltingest apparently either disagrees with me or fails to understand this distinction.

Rawrwrwr! Someone's claws are out.
I just think you're a little too eager to give government the authority to regulate religion.

I just don't understand why the 1st Amendment is being mentioned here. When did it become a protection against crimes of abuse of power?

To teach kids about eternal hell is hardly a crime.

It is when it is taught by parents or other authority figures to children that are sufficiently young, impressionable or isolated and who have not enough of moderate adult references to overcome the traumatic effect of those unfortunate teachings.

I know plenty of people who were taught that & turned out just fine. In fact, such fire & brimstone teachings often lead people to reject the religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

That depends on what we're talking about.

Are we saying that teaching children about hell-like things from a mythological perspective should be illegal? Then absolutely not. If we're saying that teaching children that hell is a real place that bad people go to should be illegal, then I'm still undecided, leaning yes.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I think the OP would've loved to live in communist Russia where it actually was a crime to speak of such things as eternal hell.

 

[839311]

I think the OP would've loved to live in communist Russia where it actually was a crime to speak of such things as eternal hell.

No...no, I wouldn't. Seeing as your Christian though, do us a favor and don't harrass us with your threats of eternal torture. That is, if you believe in it.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I would say not so much a crime, but making it at the very least a misdemeanour to mislead people just as it is a misdemeanour to use misleading advertising like miracle cures for baldness or claiming a certain product is anywhere as good as they claim it to be, like knives that never need sharpening. In the case of religion hell for instance is definitely used to sell their faith on a totally unsubstantiated threat.

 

[blackout]

Perhaps comprehensive mythology/allegory/symbolism courses
(something along the lines of Joseph Campbell for kids)
mandatory in the school systems
might help children to consider such things
from other perspectives.
Which they should.
Children should be taught critical thinking in school.
This is all a part of critical thinking,
and deeper understanding of the human psyche. (intro to psych, philosophy and sociology)

 

[waitasec]

i think it's cruel...if it's taught as if it were a real place...
and being cruel isn't a crime, unfortunately.

 

[Yeshe Dawa]

Preaching eternal hell has the potential to terribly frighten people. Some of these people are overcome by this fear, and so are terrorized into becoming followers of the cults that preach such evil ideas. Preachers of this evil concept are terrorizing others. They are attacking a person's sense of security. It is one thing to harrass someone in this life with threats of punishment or other forms of mistreatment. But the terror that one could feel if she is confronted by a preacher telling her that she may burn in hell forever can be far worse. Children are particularly vulnerable to such abuse, especially when they are terrorized with this teaching by their parents whom they generally trust.

I think teaching hell should be made a criminal offense. It is a form of harrassment of a very intense kind. People should be protected by law from this type of harrassment. The preachers of this terrifying concept should be prosecuted as criminals.

Hi 839311!

I think all religions, not just those who teach there is a hell, have concepts that can be pretty scary to children. Religion is about life and death, so there are a lot of hard things to grasp. From what I've seen, most religions, Christianity included, don't go out of their way to terrorize their children. They start out by teaching the children some of the easier concepts - God loves you, God is good, stuff like that. The few "fire and brimstone" churches that I've been to have a separate service for the children, so they aren't exposed to most of the harsher sermons until they are older.

I think I find myself in the odd position of defending the hell preachers. I think freedom of religion should not be infringed on just because we disagree with what they are preaching, and I definitely don't want to give the government the power to decide what constitutes acceptable teachings.

Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:

 

[Revoltingest]

No...no, I wouldn't. Seeing as your Christian though, do us a favor and don't harrass us with your threats of eternal torture. That is, if you believe in it.

The 1st Amendment gives'm the right to harass us, & vice versa. So we have an open marketplace of ideas.
But take away that protection, & the government you would expect to take away the preaching of Hell,
could unexpectedly turn on us, & perhaps make it illegal to preach that there is no Heaven.
Any time you give The Man power to do something for you, you also give him power to do something to you.

 

[839311]

& perhaps make it illegal to preach that there is no Heaven.

The slippery slope argument? :sarcastic Telling someone they are going to heaven makes people feel good. I don't see how this qualifies as a crime.

Threatening someone with physical harm, on the other hand, is already covered by law. The way I see it, preaching hell is simply not enforced. But it should be. These preachers are criminals that are terrorizing people.

 

[Revoltingest]

The slippery slope argument? :sarcastic Telling someone they are going to heaven makes people feel good. I don't see how this qualifies as a crime.

You misunderstand.
I said that a gov't could make it illegal to preach that there is no Heaven.

This is different from a slippery slope....I'm saying that if you grant gov't the authority to regulate religious speech & make scary dogma illegal,
it will be applied everywhere they want. And what they want, will vary with the times. Imagine how such power would be wielded if the fundies
won a slew of elections. They could argue that it would be scary to children to not believe in rewards in the afterlife. There goes legal atheism.

Threatening someone with physical harm, on the other hand, is already covered by law. The way I see it, preaching hell is simply not enforced. But it should be. These preachers are criminals that are terrorizing people.

A real threat of violence is when one person says he will commit violence against another.
The teaching of Hell is when one says God will commit the violence. No real person will do anything evil.
What next? Will it become illegal to teach about dangerous diseases just cuz some kid might get scared?

 

[839311]

You misunderstand.
I said that a gov't could make it illegal to preach that there is no Heaven.?

I understood you perfectly. Let me elaborate. What reasons are there to make it illegal to preach that there is no heaven? I'm not sure that the law has anything that would apply in this case.

This is different from a slippery slope....I'm saying that if you grant gov't the authority to regulate religious speech & make scary dogma illegal, it will be applied everywhere they want.

Its not different at all. This is a perfect example of a slippery slope.

Imagine how such power would be wielded if the fundies
won a slew of elections.

Id rather not go back to those days, thanks. I just want to be clear that you just opened up a whole other can of worms. This is wild speculation and shouldn't be tied in with what Im saying.

They could argue that it would be scary to children to not believe in rewards in the afterlife. There goes legal atheism.

They can make their arguments, thats their right. I just don't think the arguments have any weight. I don't see how telling someone that there is no magic mountain of fried chicken could be illegal. Can you think of any law that is broken? I can't.

A real threat of violence is when one person says he will commit violence against another.The teaching of Hell is when one says God will commit the violence.

I remember covering this point. Ive done some digging, and here it is.

It doesn't have to be a direct threat to be illegal, and for good reason. I would be equally as worried by someone who promised to beat me up, or by someone who promised that their friend would beat me up. In both cases the law is broken.

It's broken because they're still in on it. It's still reasonably direct.

"I'll beat you up."
"I'll get my friends to beat you up."
"My boyfriend is going to beat you up."

are direct threats.

"If you go out at night, there are guys in this neighborhood that might beat you up." is not a threat.

I Agree.

"My god will torment you forever if you don't believe in my religion."

is a direct threat. Do you think that Christians preaching this are not in on it? They are very much in on it. They are a part of this imagined organization that has their tyrannical dictator at the top, with humans carrying out his work on earth. And preaching, "Praise be to god! Torturing people forever is perfectly good because god is perfectly good! Unbelievers, repent, or your fate lies in the eternal, fiery pits of hell!" Is insane.

No real person will do anything evil. What next? Will it become illegal to teach about dangerous diseases just cuz some kid might get scared?

You really like the slippery slope don't you lol

 

[-Peacemaker-]

No...no, I wouldn't. Seeing as your Christian though, do us a favor and don't harrass us with your threats of eternal torture. That is, if you believe in it.

And yet you said the complete opposite in the original post. Here's your quote "I think teaching hell should be made a criminal offense." Communism may not be your style but what you want is no different than an Iranian theocracy except instead of implementing the laws of Islam as government policy you want to implement the "religious laws" that you acknowledge as true which is most likely some form of worship of the human brain (rationalism).

 

[839311]

And yet you said the complete opposite in the original post. Here's your quote "I think teaching hell should be made a criminal offense."

Yes. This is totally different than wanting to live in communist Russia.

Communism may not be your style but what you want is no different than an Iranian theocracy except instead of implementing the laws of Islam as government policy you want to implement the "religious laws" that you acknowledge as true which is most likely some form of worship of the human brain (rationalism).

What is this babble?

I just want our current laws regarding harrassment to be enforced. Crimes committed in the name of religion shouldn't be immune from the law.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understood you perfectly. Let me elaborate. What reasons are there to make it illegal to preach that there is no heaven? I'm not sure that the law has anything that would apply in this case.

Well, of course the law wouldn't apply. But if you alter the Constitution to allow gov't to ban the teaching of Hell to kids
because it's scary, then they could also ban the teaching that there is no Heaven, since many would find that scary.

Its not different at all. This is a perfect example of a slippery slope.

No...a slippery slope is about things heading in a certain direction, ie, a sequence of worse & worse things. This is about legislation which would require
a change in the Constitution to would allow regulation of religious teaching. This would open the door to all types of banning, not just the one you favor.

Id rather not go back to those days, thanks. I just want to be clear that you just opened up a whole other can of worms. This is wild speculation and shouldn't be tied in with what Im saying.

Tis not wild speculation. The pendulum swings & things change.
This addresses the rest of your post.

 

[pwfaith]

I don't think that there are large groups of people afraid of hell these days.

I was raised in a conservative Baptist home - the preachers taught about hell regularly, but my parents never talked about it at home.

I agree. I was raised S. Baptist and we never really talked about it at home. I honestly do not remember the pastor talking about it that much. I do remember a group coming to our school daycamp and talking about it though (Christian school).

We're much the same way with our children. We don't hide it. We answer questions about hell but we focus more on God's love, doing good things, reading the Bible and having a relationship with God.

I don't understand this idea of taking children away from parents who talk about hell, and putting them into the foster care system. Do people know nothing about the foster care system? We are a very tight family. We do almost everything together. Our kids are best friends with each other (except when they are being typical siblings lol but ask anyone of them who their best friend is and they will list off 1-2 school or church friends and then all their siblings). Would it really be better to separate all of them, sending them off to God knows who's home, move them from home to home, for the rest of their life? :no: Who is going to adopt all these children? There are more than 500,000 children and youth in foster care in the U.S. Adding hundreds of thousands more simply b/c you (general) don't agree with their religious teachings, is a good idea?

So much for Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment.

 

[pwfaith]

No...a slippery slope is about things heading in a certain direction. This is about a change in the Constitution which would allow regulation of religious teaching. You'd make one type illegal, but the banning of other types of teaching would also be enabled.

Precisely. I wonder how many people would want their children taken away for teaching God does not exist or Jesus was a man. Is this a double standard?

 

[839311]

Well, of course the law wouldn't apply. But if you alter the Constitution to allow gov't to ban the teaching of Hell to kids
because it's scary, then they could also ban the teaching that there is no Heaven, since many would find that scary.

Not because its scary. Let me underline the difference between the two because clearly your missing the important distinction. One is eternal torture, another is a cessation of existence. Whether or not its scary has nothing to do with it.

Your jumping to wild speculation based on upholding the law with regards to harrassment. We don't permit slavery anymore or stoning people. This hasn't led to opening the door to all types of banning. We tackle the issues separately. If something is deemed detrimental to people, we should have a look at it. You know that in some countries its illegal to deny that the holocaust happened? Laws are created to protect people from all kinds of evils. As I see it, threatening people with eternal torture is a serious threat that can potentially cause of lot of psychological damage, and for that reason the law should be enforced against those preachers.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I see it, threatening people with eternal torture is a serious threat that can potentially cause of lot of psychological damage, and for that reason the law should be enforced against those preachers.

You're over-reacting.
You also trust your government far more than I would.
And you're going to ignore these admonitions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Taking the Devil's Advocate position, because I don't think that teaching of Hell should be outlawed...

Well, of course the law wouldn't apply. But if you alter the Constitution to allow gov't to ban the teaching of Hell to kids
because it's scary, then they could also ban the teaching that there is no Heaven, since many would find that scary.

A child might find it scary to be told about how touching a hot stove will hurt them, too. Just having "it's scary" as the criterion would never be workable. If you're talking about the actual consequences of implementing this idea, then you'd have to assume something that could actually be implemented.

No...a slippery slope is about things heading in a certain direction, ie, a sequence of worse & worse things. This is about legislation which would require
a change in the Constitution to would allow regulation of religious teaching. This would open the door to all types of banning, not just the one you favor.

IOW, a slippery slope.

I agree. I was raised S. Baptist and we never really talked about it at home. I honestly do not remember the pastor talking about it that much. I do remember a group coming to our school daycamp and talking about it though (Christian school).

We're much the same way with our children. We don't hide it. We answer questions about hell but we focus more on God's love, doing good things, reading the Bible and having a relationship with God.

I remember listening to an episode of the Atheist Experience where two of the hosts, both of whom were raised religious (at least one Southern Baptist, and I can't remember the other, but some sort of Protestant... maybe Baptist as well) reminiscing about the songs and hymns they learned as kids, and how a lot of them were really, truly scary. Stuff about being "washed in the blood of Jesus" and the like. Even kids who aren't told blood-curdling stories of Hell every day still often get told pretty offensive and even psychologically harmful things... and not just in fringe groups; this happens in mainstream Christianity.

I don't understand this idea of taking children away from parents who talk about hell, and putting them into the foster care system. Do people know nothing about the foster care system? We are a very tight family. We do almost everything together. Our kids are best friends with each other (except when they are being typical siblings lol but ask anyone of them who their best friend is and they will list off 1-2 school or church friends and then all their siblings). Would it really be better to separate all of them, sending them off to God knows who's home, move them from home to home, for the rest of their life? :no: Who is going to adopt all these children? There are more than 500,000 children and youth in foster care in the U.S. Adding hundreds of thousands more simply b/c you (general) don't agree with their religious teachings, is a good idea?

No, it wouldn't be a good idea. Kids in that situation would be much worse off than they would with their families.

Still, "not harmful enough to warrant taking a child away from his parents" does not necessarily imply "not harmful at all".

So much for Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment.

And that's the reason why I'd oppose a law like this: because I value freedom; not because I agree with the practice of indoctrinating kids with tales of Hell.