Should teaching eternal hell be a crime?

[outhouse]

NO

not a crime.

 

[Revoltingest]

IOW, a slippery slope.

Now, I expect more from you.

Slippery slope
Example: "If we let them ban 20 round magazines, they'll ban 10 round mags next."
Tis a fallacy because it makes no argument to establish an objective level at which banning is wrong. There is only the rationale that whatever the current level
of regulation is, "We gotta stop'm here.".

What we have
In order to make teaching of Hell to kids illegal, it would require a a sea change in our law, likely a Constitutional amendment allowing Congress to regulate religion.
Unlike the slippery slope fallacy, there's no matter of degree with this step. It requires the introduction of a major new power, one which is broader than the Hell issue.
If government had a new power to regulate religious teaching, they could do far more than just ban the teaching of Hell to kids. The fans of banning don't address what
other religious regulation which would tempt lawmakers. It is this potential which I find ripe for abuse.

 

[Azekual]

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.

I smell a troll.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I smell a troll.

Nope, just another commi

 

[waitasec]

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.

and is also a reason why there are suicide bombers and why someone would fly into buildings...

 

[waitasec]

NO

not a crime.

you are right,
but it is criminal.

 

[Azekual]

I may as well throw in my two cents
While it is wrong to terrorize people with the concept of an afterlife of suffering for not believing a certain way, it's not illegal.
In fact, the only way to make it illegal would be to wade through a "Freedom of Religion" *********
I am afraid, however, that saving the children is a pipe dream. What religion a parent teaches it's child is it's own business and is protected by the first amendment.
All you can hope is that the terrorizing of children with threats of being Hellbound remains a minority

 

[839311]

and is also a reason why there are suicide bombers and why someone would fly into buildings...

Yes, but I think its only a small reason. Extremism is the problem here, not the idea of an afterlife in itself. If someone tells me that I am going to heaven no matter what I do, I genuinly feel good about that. Its positive. I appreciate this person's belief.

Terrorists are brainwashed with all kinds of other ideas that are far more influential than the idea of a heaven. Ideas such as 'America is evil', or 'Western ideas are evil', or 'God hates America', and especially 'God wants you to terrorize and kill Americans' - these are the ideas that are compelling people to turn to terrorism.

 

[pwfaith]

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 grew up with many of those old fashioned hymns and never felt afraid and definitely was not psychologically damaged. I understand the lyrics and what they meant. Even at a young age I understood it wasn't literal, but spiritual, talking about our sins being cleansed by Jesus blood. I never saw this as offensive. Still don't. Nor do my children.

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

Have you considered this from my POV of what I consider "harmful"? Would it be ok for me to make laws from my POV, so children are not "harmed" by the teachings of their parents? (I'm not just meaning you b/c I know you said you'd oppose laws like this, but it seems others are not making this connection).

I have non-Christian friends and have seen debates online about cursing at children. I consider cursing AT [not around, but at] ones child to be emotionally and psychologically damaging. I was quite surprised at the number of people who openly admitted that they cursed at their children and saw nothing wrong with it. "Harmful" esp when we are talking emotionally and psychologically can be very subjective and differ from person to person. I would be fine with a case-by-case evaluation (which we have today) rather than across-the-board generalizations of a whole religion/teaching/non-teaching.

 

[Me Myself]

I do believe it is a really cruel thing to teach, but it is important to remember that those who teach it believe it too, and they too believe rather seriously that they may be saving people from it if they know it.

I voted no, but I do think it is very sad that most people´s image of God is somebody who will punish a limited action with unlimited consecuences.

If punishment is not for learning on he who is punished, then why the punish? Will God not forgive the man who didn´t forgive his brother?

If God can´t teach by example, how can we little children aspire to learn?

But many good people believe this by one way and the other, as most religious beliefs are view in different light for all kinds of people. In any case, this is not a matter of the state to punish, but of the understanding people to guide.

Blessings to All

 

[LuisDantas]

There is teaching Hell and there is teaching Hell. I am aware of the concept and even use it fairly often. But neither law nor society should allow people to terrorize their own children with any concepts under the excuse of "respecting their beliefs".

Contrary to Revoltingest's claims, the correct, secular and freedom-respecting way to go is rather clearly that of protecting young, impressionable children from the emotional abuse that parents and other adults often inflict on children.

That the tools for inflict such damage often have religious trappings is true enough, but the respect for children's well-being trumps the respect for people's religious convictions anytime.

 

[pwfaith]

Contrary to Revoltingest's claims, the correct, secular and freedom-respecting way to go is rather clearly that of protecting young, impressionable children from the emotional abuse that parents and other adults often inflict on children.

Who decides if and/or when it is emotional abuse? The teaching of it, in and of itself, is not emotional abuse. There are plenty, perfectly fine adults who were taught the existence of hell, who show absolutely no signs of emotional abuse from it. Who decides?

I was recently in a discussion on another site about the book "Go the *&^% to sleep" and abuse was brought up in the conversation, when talking about cursing at one's child(ren). Interesting stats shown...

Murray A. Straus. Professor of Sociology and Co-Director Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire:

Soc 695 Family Violence Research In World Perspective
Measure of Psychological Aggression
(Emotional Abuse)

Psychological Aggression Scale of The Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales

"Ordinary"

• Shouted, yelled, or screamed at child
• Threatened to spank or hit but did not actually do it

"Severe"

• Swore or cursed at child
• Called him/her dumb or lazy or some other name like that
• Told child you would send him/her away or
• Kicked him/her out of the house

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/695-Soc/Lectures-May-07/695_PSYCHOLOGICAL_AGGRESSION_07_1.ppt

Are you willing to include these forms of 'abuse' with teaching the mere existence of hell? If you have children, have you ever raised your voice at them?

 

[LuisDantas]

Who decides if and/or when it is emotional abuse?

That is the thorny part: establishing arbiters without unduly interfering in people's basic rights.

Ideally, people should learn to watch themselves and those closest to them, as well as to overcome the fear of questioning. There are fairly objective signs that are way too often overlooked, mainly because it is a major headache to actually repress the abuse that happens.

The teaching of it, in and of itself, is not emotional abuse. There are plenty, perfectly fine adults who were taught the existence of hell, who show absolutely no signs of emotional abuse from it. Who decides?

Someone must, and someone does. Often enough the parents themselves realize when they go too far. That is fortunate and fine, but doesn't make the need for such care any less real.

I was recently in a discussion on another site about the book "Go the *&^% to sleep" and abuse was brought up in the conversation, when talking about cursing at one's child(ren). Interesting stats shown...

Murray A. Straus. Professor of Sociology and Co-Director Family Research Laboratory University of New Hampshire:



Are you willing to include these forms of 'abuse' with teaching the mere existence of hell? If you have children, have you ever raised your voice at them?

I would rather avoid giving general judgements over matters that are so specific to each case, if you don't mind. We haven't even defined an age group yet, for instance. Also, the impact of the teachings depends a whole lot on how the general environment where the children are raised is. As a general rule, the less opportunity they have to interact with other people the more severe the emotional scars of verbal aggression. And of course, some people are simply more vulnerable than others for reasons that are not always discernible.

That said, the latter half of the "severe" category raises my alarm.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is teaching Hell and there is teaching Hell. I am aware of the concept and even use it fairly often. But neither law nor society should allow people to terrorize their own children with any concepts under the excuse of "respecting their beliefs".

You haven't demonstrated that children are being "terrorized".

Contrary to Revoltingest's claims, the correct, secular and freedom-respecting way to go is rather clearly that of protecting young, impressionable children from the emotional abuse that parents and other adults often inflict on children.

Now, now....let's not create a straw man. I certainly don't condone emotional abuse of children. I just don't buy your unsupported claim that
teaching about Hell is abusive. Moreover, you would grant the power to regulate religious teaching to government, & that is what I oppose.

 

[LuisDantas]

You haven't demonstrated that children are being "terrorized".

I guess I haven't. I have witnessed it, however. It does happen, and it is unfortunately not at all rare.

If you want some concrete cases, I may recommend some books by Alice Miller, and even some chapters of Christopher Hitchens' "God is not Great".

Now, now....let's not create a straw man. I certainly don't condone emotional abuse of children.

Unless it manages to disguise itself as religious expression, apparently.

I just don't buy your unsupported claim that teaching about Hell is abusive.

And you shouldn't. Maybe you are blessed enough not to have met such cases. I am not.

Moreover, you would grant the power to regulate religious teaching to government, & that is what I oppose.

Then you missed the whole point of my post. It is not the religious teaching that should be regulated, but rather the emotional abuse. It can happen outside of religious teachings as well, and should be avoided just as fiercely.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your personal experience is at odds with what I see.
Child abuse is already prohibited here.
The proposal in the OP is to ban the teaching of Hell.
That would require a major change in US law.
Even if this is not the point of your posts, it is a necessary component.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your personal experience is at odds with what I see.

I sincerely hope so.

Child abuse is already prohibited here.

Of course it is. So is recreational use of hemp, I assume. But I don't assume it not to happen.

As a rule, laws are ineffective in establishing moral values, and fortunately so.

I don't think it is fair to allow marijuana use out of religious justification alone, and the same applies for child abuse.

The proposal in the OP is to ban the teaching of Hell.
That would require a major change in US law.
Even if this is not the point of your posts, it is a necessary component.

Fair enough. I thought I had made the necessary observations in my first post, but fair enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now that we have detente, I'm off to dreamland.
Good nite!

 

[LuisDantas]

Good Night, Revoltingest.

 

[pwfaith]

Then you missed the whole point of my post. It is not the religious teaching that should be regulated, but rather the emotional abuse. It can happen outside of religious teachings as well, and should be avoided just as fiercely.

Perhaps you can define "emotional abuse" first. How would it be identified in such a case? Is it the fact that the child is scared from it? If that's the case every parent who has ever read a scary book/fairy tale, told a ghost story or allowed their child to watch a scary movie would be accused as well. My dad let me watch Carrie at a young age (under 12), as well as Fire Starter and People Across the Lake. I would not set foot in our basement for at least 2 yrs after watching that stupid movie. We're my parents "emotionally abusive"? Now, as an adult, I have no lingering ill-effects. Carrie still gives me the creeps though lol

I think when we begin to use 'abuse' so loosely like this it takes away from actual instances of abuse, which is sad.