"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[McBell]

And so the control begins.

I prefer to look at it as getting the control back.

 

[dust1n]

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.

Or, if Jews, Muslims, Hindus or anyone insist on teaching kids their religion, we can be civilly against their right to do that.

 

[McBell]

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.

wow.
You completely forgot the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy...

 

[dust1n]

Not teaching creationism is child abuse.

You're right! We have to start teaching that creationism is bad or how much better are we really? Wait, that's what you meant by teaching creationism, right? I just kid.

 

[McBell]

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

I do not know which is worse, that you are petty enough to make said claim whilst claiming the higher moral ground, or that you might actually believe the "evolution is a myth" line of bull **** denial.

 

[Man of Faith]

Check it out, I found some teachings that are not child abuse. Teach the children that there is no God, no meaning and purpose in life, they are just animals, there is no ultimate morality, do what you want. Then spank them for misbehaving.

 

[johnhanks]

Teach the children that there is no God, no meaning and purpose in life, they are just animals, there is no ultimate morality, do what you want.

How do you imagine any of this follows from the teaching of evolutionary theory?

 

[ArcNinja]

It isn't abuse at all if it's taught the same way that other myths are taught. Greek mythology is an example.

 

[Me Myself]

Check it out, I found some teachings that are not child abuse. Teach the children that there is no God, no meaning and purpose in life, they are just animals, there is no ultimate morality, do what you want. Then spank them for misbehaving.

This is a clear example of distorting what you are hearing to,make it sound how way you want to hear it instead of actually understanding the other side of the argument.

Which is exactly what we are going against here.

 

[McBell]

Check it out, I found some teachings that are not child abuse. Teach the children that there is no God, no meaning and purpose in life, they are just animals, there is no ultimate morality, do what you want. Then spank them for misbehaving.

you false dichotomy is rather amusing.

Or would be if you did not think it to be true...

 

[Koldo]

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."

Then that was a communication failure. Your sentences seem to have a much more overlapping meaning than you intended them to have.

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.

So, it only counts as child abuse if it results in worthless social reprobates? I guess not, right?
Otherwise, what standard are you using to determine what counts as child abuse? You are just saying 'this is child abuse' and 'this is not child abuse'. No arguments there, just statements.

 

[Quintessence]

Well, it does have implications in other religious traditions. If "intellectual abuse" is suddenly included as a form of child abuse, it can easily screw over members of any other religious minority with "nonstandard" worldviews and effectively attempt to commit cultural genocide against these groups as well. I can guarantee you that Neopagans wouldn't fare well if such standards were made law. "Oh, these people believe in magic? Well, that's just stupid and backwards, so it's intellectual abuse! We're going to take their kids away too!"

Go look up standards for taking children away from their parents by American law. That's my standard for child abuse. Or read through this or something, the main four points of which are summarized below:.

1) Physical abuse involves physical aggression directed at a child by an adult.
2) Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent abuses a child for sexual stimulation.
3) Emotional abuse is defined as the production of psychological and social deficits in the growth of a child as a result of behavior such as loud yelling, coarse and rude attitude, inattention, harsh criticism, and denigration of the child's personality.
4) Child neglect is the failure of a parent or other person with responsibility for the child to provide needed food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision to the degree that the child's health, safety, and well-being are threatened with harm.

There's no such thing as "intellectual abuse," which is the most teaching YEC could qualify as. Nowhere does bringing up a child in a specific religious tradition that disagrees with science and secular values constitute "child abuse." The end. It's not child abuse, period. And I'm really kind of tired of reiterating this point, so this is absolutely the last time I am doing so.

 

[fantome profane]

Well, it does have implications in other religious traditions. If "intellectual abuse" is suddenly included as a form of child abuse, it can easily screw over members of any other religious minority with "nonstandard" worldviews and effectively attempt to commit cultural genocide against these groups as well. I can guarantee you that Neopagans wouldn't fare well if such standards were made law. "Oh, these people believe in magic? Well, that's just stupid and backwards, so it's intellectual abuse! We're going to take their kids away too!"

Go look up standards for taking children away from their parents by American law. That's my standard for child abuse. Or read through this or something, the main four points of which are summarized below:.



There's no such thing as "intellectual abuse," which is the most teaching YEC could qualify as. Nowhere does bringing up a child in a specific religious tradition that disagrees with science and secular values constitute "child abuse." The end. It's not child abuse, period. And I'm really kind of tired of reiterating this point, so this is absolutely the last time I am doing so.

Has anyone actually suggested taking children away from any Creationists?
Or is that just you?

 

[Father Heathen]

Teach the children that there is no God, no meaning and purpose in life

Deities are not prerequisites for purpose and meaning, unless you live a pretty shallow existence.

 

[Father Heathen]

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

Evolution is logically consistent and has an insurmountable mountain of evidence that supports it, on top of being observable. No faith required.

You'll just have to be honest with yourselves and come to terms with the fact that bronze age fables hold no literal truths.

 

[Quintessence]

Has anyone actually suggested taking children away from any Creationists?
Or is that just you?

Calling it "child abuse" kind of implies that, doesn't it? It kind of implies that the parents should be stripped of their right to raise their kids since they are being abused. It's a social wrong to be corrected. That's what labeling it "child abuse" implies, doesn't it? If not, than everything being said here is empty words.

 

[Me Myself]

Calling it "child abuse" kind of implies that, doesn't it? It kind of implies that the parents should be stripped of their right to raise their kids since they are being abused. It's a social wrong to be corrected. That's what labeling it "child abuse" implies, doesn't it? If not, than everything being said here is empty words.

Only if we were saying it should be legally recognized as child abuse.

Reality is we abuse each other all the time.

 

[fantome profane]

Calling it "child abuse" kind of implies that, doesn't it? It kind of implies that the parents should be stripped of their right to raise their kids since they are being abused. It's a social wrong to be corrected. That's what labeling it "child abuse" implies, doesn't it? If not, than everything being said here is empty words.

With respect I think you need to watch that clip in the op again. You need to try to understand what point Laurence Krauss is trying to make and put it in context.

Yes he does use the phrase "child abuse". And you may be right that he should not have used that phrase. And perhaps he should be criticized for excessive retoric.

But I get so frustrated when people concentrate so fully on one or two words and ignore the actual message. Laurence Krauss is talking about what should be taught in schools. He is not talking about taking kids away from their parents. Really, it is as if you only heard two words from that video. Please, seriously, try watching it again. And when watching it try employing just a little bit of "intellectual charity", consider what seems to be the best most reasonable understanding of his message, not the worst.

[youtube]UTedvV6oZjo[/youtube]

I think you will see that he his saying that we need to do a better job at educating children in science. "The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance, but to overcome it".

 

[Quintessence]

Sure, that's all well and good. I don't disagree with the message. However, I think that message would be better served without throwing around rhetoric like "child abuse," for reasons that I iterated several pages back and don't feel like repeating again. In brief, I'm not a fan of rhetoric that stokes the flames of contended issues. Because gods know that some folks are going to read this as "you want to take my children away from me? HOW DARE YOU!" That's not needed; we don't need more of that hostility and intolerance.

 

[fantome profane]

Sure, that's all well and good. I don't disagree with the message. However, I think that message would be better served without throwing around rhetoric like "child abuse," for reasons that I iterated several pages back and don't feel like repeating again. In brief, I'm not a fan of rhetoric that stokes the flames of contended issues. Because gods know that some folks are going to read this as "you want to take my children away from me? HOW DARE YOU!" That's not needed; we don't need more of that hostility and intolerance.

Fine, as long as you understand that no one was suggesting that children be taken from their parents. Some people might over react to a bad turn of phrase. But that doesn't mean you must.