Stop the Nightmares

[_Chap]

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without it, my friend.

And I take no stock in what a "good many billions" of people profess to believe.

I tend to agree with the first statement.

For the second, I think that it is worth paying some serious attention to widely held beliefs, at least in one's own society, and to spend a while examining the grounds on which they are held. If (as with the belief in hell) there appears to be no evidence in their favour, I cease to pay further serious attention to them as possible facts, never mind how many people believe in them.

But (see above) I still don't think it is either practical or prudent to legislate in order to save children from being frightened by stories of eternal torment. There are other ways of achieving that aim.

[_Scottie]

So, we are now speaking strictly in facts? Beliefs hold no weight in this discussion?

Fictional beliefs hold no weight in this discussion. Look, If you want to scare the s*** out of your kids with descriptions of the underworld and torment them with threats and false realities, emotional abuse, you better pony up some facts or change your approach.

Just so we are clear here, I don't believe in God, the Devil or hell. However, I recognize that there are a great many people who DO believe in these things. I have no desire to take these beliefs away from them through legislation.

You may take no stock in those beliefs, but that really doesn't matter. Who assigned you judge, jury and executioner on which beliefs are valid and which are not?

Waaaaaa.

What a stellar argument!

Believe whatever sort of nonsense you want, waste your life and your money on it. I don't care. But stop abusing your children. Stop polluting their developing minds with sinister threats about a place that doesn't exist.

I don't. However, I will allow those parents who truly believe in hell to raise their children to believe in hell. You know...that pesky ol' freedom of religion thing.

I'm actually fairly confident that one day we will see legislation like this in the US.

There is a better chance of hell existing.

Think about the type of abuse kids were subject to in the 50's compared to what is allowed today. You don't have the right to physically beat the hell out of your kid, and you don't have the right to mentally beat the hell out of them either.

Yeeeeah....be good or go to hell vs come here and let me beat the s*** out of you. VERY similar.

Kemp, what would you like the penalty to be if someone chooses to teach their children about hell?

I don't know. I'm not judge, jury, and executioner.

Sooo...wait...you want us to sign a petition to enact legisation to punish people who teach their children about hell.......but you don't know what the proposed punishment is???

Why on earth would I sign this??

[_asbestosman]

I also don't think it's best for babies to be fed infant formula. I breastfed all my babies, but don't think it's poor parenting for babies to be given baby formula from bottles.

Furthermore there can be circumstances in which formula may be good such as when the mother is undergoing surgery and is taking medication, or perhaps the baby is underweight from mother's milk alone and therefore the mother combines breastfeeding with formula (I know of someone who's doctor recommended that due to her babies being underweight).

What I'm saying is that even if some things are traumatic for children (denying a child her mother's breastmilk because mommy is taking medication), there may be proper reasons for it. I don't think teaching children about hell is necessarily traumatic although I suppose it could be if done with the intent to manipulate instead of to warn.

[_Paul Kemp]

Two things:
1. Freedom of religion does not give someone the license to do anything they want. This goes without saying. Freedom to believe whatever you want doesn't mean you can abuse your children, even if you believe it's ok.

2. You should read the petition. It seeks to add religious threats to a list of things that are already considered emotional abuse. And you can't sign it, unless you are a resident of the U.K.The consequences should probably be the same as the current consequences for child abuse.

I appreciate your devil's advocacy, but you are trying to equate my argument with censoring religious freedom. This is either a grave misinterpretation of the argument, or a straw man.

[_Scottie]

Two things:
1. Freedom of religion does not give someone the license to do anything they want. This goes without saying. Freedom to believe whatever you want doesn't mean you can abuse your children, even if you believe it's ok.

I'll agree with this.

2. You should read the petition. It seeks to add religious threats to a list of things that are already considered emotional abuse. And you can't sign it, unless you are a resident of the U.K.The consequences should probably be the same as the current consequences for child abuse.

This isn't a new concept. Religious mandates have been tried before, usually with very brutal punishments and very little adherence.

Isn't religious intolerance why so many people are dying today? And you want to perpetuate that further??

I appreciate your devil's advocacy, but you are trying to equate my argument with censoring religious freedom. This is either a grave misinterpretation of the argument, or a straw man.

I'm confused. I would call this petition an attempt at censoring of religious freedom. What are you calling it?

[_Paul Kemp]

I'm confused. I would call this petition an attempt at censoring of religious freedom. What are you calling it?

It is clearly a petition to curb emotional abuse against children.

[_Scottie]

I'm confused. I would call this petition an attempt at censoring of religious freedom. What are you calling it?

It is clearly a petition to curb emotional abuse against children.

Yes, that is the ends.

The means is censoring religious freedoms.

[Guest]

Does the LDS religion teach there is a fire and brimstone hell for all eternity with a gnashing and wailing of teeth? It was my understanding this wasn't taught.

I don't know if it's emotionally traumatizing for children to be taught this. I could imagine it could be, actually. I've read so many ex-Mos that were in a frickin' tizzy that they thought they would just be in a lower Kingdom without their families-- well, that's not HELL. :)

I am uncomfortable with the legislation and don't think it would be effective. The way to change beliefs is to challenge them.

[_Paul Kemp]

I'm confused. I would call this petition an attempt at censoring of religious freedom. What are you calling it?

It is clearly a petition to curb emotional abuse against children.

Yes, that is the ends.

The means is censoring religious freedoms.

Only if you consider emotional abuse a religious freedom. Genital mutilation might also be a religious freedom. We should still "censor" it.

[_Paul Kemp]

Does the LDS religion teach there is a fire and brimstone hell for all eternity with a gnashing and wailing of teeth? It was my understanding this wasn't taught.

Mormon hell is called outer darkness. Guess who that place is reserved for? Murderers, child rapists, serial killers, ? Noooooo. The worst thing a person can do in the LDS religion is deny the Holy Ghost. Riiiiight.....

I am uncomfortable with the legislation and don't think it would be effective. The way to change beliefs is to challenge them.

I wouldn't expect it to work perfectly. I see it as a statement and a step in the right direction.