"Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse"

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Maybe it's because I come from such a Conservative background that it's easy for me to understand, but using a term like child abuse in a way becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of the Bible that does say such things will be said about Christianity and it's beliefs. It would not surprise me one bit to find this video quoted on some pamphlet or leaflet somewhere out there explaining how Satan's influence has a death-grip on society, that good is considered evil and evil is considered good (I remember that one being said many times in church and even one member here mentioned it recently), and how all these godless morals on society have lead to an assault on Christianity. Really it's sad to see people like Richard Dawkins, a brilliant scientist, provide so much fuel to feed those fires and keep them burning strong and have reaffirmed what their religion teachers them; the world is out to get them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In other words, it's statements like "teaching Creationism is child abuse" that makes Satan more than just a boogeyman of an idea to people who believe Creationism, it is giving him names, faces, voices, and power.

 

[Skwim]

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.

From the source for the "main four points" you cite.

"Unfortunately, there is no single, universally applied definition of child abuse and neglect. Over the past several decades, different stakeholders—including State and Federal legislative bodies, agency officials, and researchers—have developed definitions of maltreatment for different purposes."
​

So, unless you know all these definitions you can't say that abusing the intellect of children doesn't qualify as child abuse.

And I'm really kind of tired of reiterating this point, so this is absolutely the last time I am doing so.

And I think I can speak for all here; Thank you for your promise to cease and desist.

 

[fantome profane]

From the source for the "main four points" you cite.

"Unfortunately, there is no single, universally applied definition of child abuse and neglect. Over the past several decades, different stakeholders—including State and Federal legislative bodies, agency officials, and researchers—have developed definitions of maltreatment for different purposes."
​

So, unless you know all these definitions you can't say that abusing the intellect of children doesn't qualify as child abuse.

This is me officially walking away from this debate. :run:

 

[lunamoth]

I'm going to poke you with this big pointy stick. Then I'm going to explain how the stick is not really that pointy, or that big. And I really did not mean to poke you that hard, it was mostly just in fun. A metaphor if you wish, just an illustration. And if you now feel like you've been poked with a big pointy stick that really is just your perspective on it, because there are many things that could qualify as a 'stick' and 'pointy,' and in the grand scheme of things this big pointy stick was actually quite small and not really so pointy. Blunt even. So get over it.

 

[Me Myself]

In other words, it's statements like "teaching Creationism is child abuse" that makes Satan more than just a boogeyman of an idea to people who believe Creationism, it is giving him names, faces, voices, and power.

To be fair, the bible makes it incredibly essy to be contradicted and be validated at e same time.

things like "you have given this knowledge to the poor and ignorant and not to the wise" and stuff like knowledge being so bad it caused the fall, make it ridiculous to even ink on trying to both educate this people on the obvious falsehood of eir claims and not appear to be the devil.

 

[Koldo]

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!"

Let us not confuse things that contradict theories and laws of physics with others that stand on a gray area of science.

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.

So your standard is the one in the american law. What if the standard of the american law changed?

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah, this is reaching a degree of "personal" that smells bad. I decline to answer. The answer is irrelevant. What needed to be said has been said, and given a rather rude comment from the OP, I am also officially done with this thread. He obviously wants me to shut the $#@% up, so I might as well indulge him.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, this is reaching a degree of "personal" that smells bad. I decline to answer.

Do as you see fit.

The answer is irrelevant.

I wouldn't call it irrelevant. I would rather say the question is indeed more important than the answer. It shows that laws are built around some concepts and that using the law as a justification for these concepts leads you into a circular reasoning. Not only that, if you use the law as a ground to firm your stance on, then when it changes you ought to change your stance accordingly as well for the sake of consistency.

 

[Skwim]

Yeah, this is reaching a degree of "personal" that smells bad. I decline to answer. The answer is irrelevant. What needed to be said has been said, and given a rather rude comment from the OP, I am also officially done with this thread. He obviously wants me to shut the $#@% up, so I might as well indulge him.

So, you can get "tired of reiterating this point," but we shouldn't get tired of reading it? What did you expect after making the statement; "NO! NO! Say it again. PLEEEEESE"?

And, as far as "reaching a degree of 'personal' that smells bad," let me remind you that it was you who first made any personal reference to yourself. "I'm really kind of tired of . . . ." Don't want to talk about yourself, then I suggest you not bring up the subject.

 

[NIX]

The only kind of actual harm I can think of that might befall a child who is taught creationism would be teasing, mockery and bullying by others. Perhaps bad grades in a science class if they're not pragmatic enough to answer questions in a manner that the class requires. It could also be a problem for a child who might want to persue sciences as a career- it could hurt/harm their standing with colleagues which would hurt/harm them economically. It sets a pretty low bar on the term 'abuse'.

 

[outhouse]

The only kind of actual harm I can think of that might befall a child who is taught creationism would be teasing, mockery and bullying by others. Perhaps bad grades in a science class if they're not pragmatic enough to answer questions in a manner that the class requires. It could also be a problem for a child who might want to persue sciences as a career- it could hurt/harm their standing with colleagues which would hurt/harm them economically. It sets a pretty low bar on the term 'abuse'.

Its the pattern of living mythology that is the danger.

When one lives mythology they can close realities door behind them.

It really does open up more negative doors then it appears.


Evidence is in the USA with a high rate of people still believing in YEC and creation, and fighting the well known science of biology.

 

[Desert Snake]

Its the pattern of living mythology that is the danger.

When one lives mythology they can close realities door behind them.

It really does open up more negative doors then it appears.


Evidence is in the USA with a high rate of people still believing in YEC and creation, and fighting the well known science of biology.

This is way over-generalizing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its the pattern of living mythology that is the danger.
When one lives mythology they can close realities door behind them.
It really does open up more negative doors then it appears.
Evidence is in the USA with a high rate of people still believing in YEC and creation, and fighting the well known science of biology.

I don't want to defend any myths, but let's examine the damage they cause.
We became a leading technological & & industrial force in the 1830s (New England manufacturers). We attained real supremacy by the
1940s. But we now see our status declining relative to other rising stars, eg, PRC, which surpassed as a global leader in trade last year.
All that time, we were plagued by fundies & their myths, so it's reasonable to speculate that other factors are at work.

 

[outhouse]

I don't want to defend any myths, but let's examine the damage they cause.
We became a leading technological & & industrial force in the 1830s (New England manufacturers). We attained real supremacy by the
1940s. But we now see our status declining relative to other rising stars, eg, PRC, which surpassed as a global leader in trade last year.
All that time, we were plagued by fundies & their myths, so it's reasonable to speculate that other factors are at work.

The positive and negative impact is outside your context.

USA is founded on religious freedom, yet there are those who fight to keep certain religious policies in place, in governement and schools.

 

[Revoltingest]

The positive and negative impact is outside your context.
USA is founded on religious freedom, yet there are those who fight to keep certain religious policies in place, in governement and schools.

But they've always fought to put religion in school. When I was in public school, we had compulsory prayer.
That's now gone, so some progress has been made. Yet in spite of this, we're in a state of relative technological
& industrial decline. I don't doubt that magical thinking is dysfunctional....I just notice is that we had succeeded in
spite of magical beliefs being rampant in society. It appears to be only a mild problem for us.

 

[Sunstone]

The only kind of actual harm I can think of that might befall a child who is taught creationism would be teasing, mockery and bullying by others. Perhaps bad grades in a science class if they're not pragmatic enough to answer questions in a manner that the class requires. It could also be a problem for a child who might want to persue sciences as a career- it could hurt/harm their standing with colleagues which would hurt/harm them economically. It sets a pretty low bar on the term 'abuse'.

I don't know. If you took some kid with a natural talent for music, then screwed up their musical education so bad that they couldn't pursue their interest in music, or at least, had inordinate trouble pursuing it, you wouldn't be doing the kid any favors. Same with a kid who had a natural talent for the sciences.

 

[Riverwolf]

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

Exactly.

Even as a theist, the Gods don't play a foremost role in my purpose and meaning, any more than my teachers at school do.

 

[Riverwolf]

Its the pattern of living mythology that is the danger.

When one lives mythology they can close realities door behind them.

It really does open up more negative doors then it appears.


Evidence is in the USA with a high rate of people still believing in YEC and creation, and fighting the well known science of biology.

As Joseph Campbell said, mythology is not a toy to be played with.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Not child abuse, just mere telling them fairy tales from another fairy tale book.