"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[Walkntune]

And now we can start prosecuting YEC fundies as though they were child molesters.
Next, let's go after the Jews (Chosen people, indeed!), Muslims (nothing wrong with
pork) & Hindus (castes & so many gods) for teaching their kids religious myths too.

Lets not forget the faith based myths being taught as evolution they are currently teaching.

 

[Riverwolf]

The bible is a mirror of the soul of the one who reads it.It is a two edged sword and reflects love to those full of love and hate to those full of hate.It is truly meant for man to see himself from the perspective of God and not for man to see God from the perspective of man.

The same could be said for all mythologies and literature.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

While it's cool that some people are standing up to speak against Creationism, I can't help but wonder if the company that made those videos has an agenda since they had Bill Nye saying Creationism is inappropriate for children.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not the bible. Power, control, and money are the culprits.Those who operate as such will use any means necessary including the bible.

And science.

So, science is just like the Bible in this regard.

 

[Riverwolf]

It all ties in to the fact man has become so evil in his heart they would accuse teaching a child the love of Christ as child abuse. They have turned the truth into a lie.

...that's not what this thread is about. Nobody in this thread has called such a teaching child abuse.

 

[Skwim]

While it's cool that some people are standing up to speak against Creationism, I can't help but wonder if the company that made those videos has an agenda since they had Bill Nye saying Creationism is inappropriate for children.

And if they do? You're not suggesting that being actively against teaching creationism in schools is bad, are you?

 

[Riverwolf]

Lets not forget the faith based myths being taught as evolution they are currently teaching.

It's not a myth. I can observe it myself.

 

[Skwim]

...that's not what this thread is about. Nobody in this thread has called such a teaching child abuse.

Just another straw-man he's tossed out to deflect the discussion away from that of the OP: Teaching creationism in schools is child abuse. One might even conclude that he agrees with it, but feels obligated to ignore it so as to preserve his sense of Christian integrity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The bible is a mirror of the soul of the one who reads it.It is a two edged sword and reflects love to those full of love and hate to those full of hate.It is truly meant for man to see himself from the perspective of God and not for man to see God from the perspective of man.

I agree fully that if their is a god, this said being(s) would not have a human brain nor human experience thus would be difficult if not impossible for one who is human to comprehend. However, it is perfectly justified for humans to call foul against an entity that condones genocide and slavery, even if it is a part of a divine plan or judgement. No we cannot understand God's ways, we barely understand our own ways after all, but that doesn't excuse or pardon the behaviors that we would condemn humans for. If slavery has caused such controversy in American history that the history of the Civil War is often lightened, changed, and made to not look as bad as it was, then why should the fact god included "he that is...bought with money (Gens 17:12)" as a part of the covenant between him and Abraham be held to a different standard?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And if they do? You're not suggesting that being actively against teaching creationism in schools is bad, are you?

I'm saying science should have no agenda beyond observations, searching for facts, and teaching those findings to others. An agenda to actively attack a religious belief is to make any such scientist no different than the religious people who actively attack science.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not teaching creationism is child abuse.

 

[Riverwolf]

Just another straw-man he's tossed out to deflect the discussion away from that of the OP: Teaching creationism in schools is child abuse. One might even conclude that he agrees with it, but feels obligated to ignore it so as to preserve his sense of Christian integrity.

I don't agree with calling it child abuse, but I do agree that it has no place in schools.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not teaching creationism is child abuse.

Explain.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't agree with calling it child abuse, but I do agree that it has no place in schools.

Neither does teaching non-creationism though, also.
Neither are "science".

 

[Riverwolf]

Neither does teaching non-creationism though, also.
Neither are "science".

What is non-creationism? I don't remember that lesson.

 

[Desert Snake]

What is non-creationism? I don't remember that lesson.

Eh, theoretically. Many classes I,ve taken go into that mode so to speak, that's the nature of 'ideal' education and the reality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not teaching creationism is child abuse.

Glad to know you think any children I have I will be abusing them. And that I abuse my nieces and nephews for not teaching it to them, but instead encouraging them to ask questions and not accept anything that doesn't make sense. I even praised my oldest nephew when he didn't cave to pressure and declined to pray during an emergency.

Neither does teaching non-creationism though, also.

Non-creationism? I am curious about what you mean by such a term, because it seems to imply their are only two plausible scenarios.

 

[Riverwolf]

Eh, theoretically. Many classes I,ve taken go into that mode so to speak, that's the nature of 'ideal' education and the reality.

I don't understand. Education is simply about relaying information that will help children in the world, and expose them to the world.

 

[Skwim]

I don't agree with calling it child abuse, but I do agree that it has no place in schools.

That's good enough for me.

 

[Quintessence]

You are conflating all religion traditions in a single group. And then making it appear as if this single group was being attacked. That is not the case. A particular religious teaching is being singled out for a very specific reason that doesn't apply to many other religious teachings.

LOL. I'm not conflating anything. For religious traditions that include the teaching of Bible-based literalistic creationism, removing that dilutes that specific sort of tradition. I'm not sure where you got the strange idea that I felt this applied to all religions somehow. Clearly this thread is discussing Bible-based literalistic creationism, and I kind of assumed it was understood that this discussion only applies to that narrow subset of religious traditions. Their traditions kind of are being attacked and defamed by calling their teachings "child abuse."

And yeah, the constitution definitely protects some kinds of "child abuse" that aren't actually child abuse. You know, like the freedom and liberty of raising your kids in your religious tradition even if it *gasp* contradicts science and secular values! I mean, seriously, that's the worst that's being done here. It's not as if these kids go on and become worthless social reprobates. Good grief. Again, I understand folks being mad about the nutters who try and force their agenda onto everyone else (specifically, the public school system) but private families? Really, now. Yelling at your kid every day and telling them how worthless they are is abuse. Repeated violence used to "discipline" them that leaves bruises and shattered bones is abuse. Sexually molesting them is abuse. Tying them to a leash in the basement with a doggie bowl of food and water for two weeks is abuse. Teaching them creationism is NOT abuse. Sorry.