Stop the Nightmares

[_Paul Kemp]

I'm tempted to start a new thread, but I think I'll try and revive this one first. Especially because so much fuss has been made over the "right" parents have to subject their kids to religious lunacy, often to their own detriment.

See this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/fai ... index.html

Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

But parents should have the right to teach their kids about folk magic and hell and whatever other nonsense they choose, shouldn't they?

Nelson said a catheter would have saved the boy's life.

I guess Jesus isn't as powerful as a plastic tube jammed down your pee-hole.
But parents certainly have the right to tell them Jesus can heal urinary tract blockages, don't they?

In March, the boy's 15-month-old cousin Ava Worthington died at home from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection.

Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington, also belong to the church. They have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated that they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.

Anyone want to argue for the freedom that this poor kid's parents were exercising?

[_cksalmon]

I'm tempted to start a new thread, but I think I'll try and revive this one first. Especially because so much fuss has been made over the "right" parents have to subject their kids to religious lunacy, often to their own detriment.

See this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/19/fai ... index.html

Authorities say a teenager from a faith-healing family died from an illness that could have been easily treated, just a few months after a toddler cousin of his died in a case that has led to criminal charges.

But parents should have the right to teach their kids about folk magic and hell and whatever other nonsense they choose, shouldn't they?

Nelson said a catheter would have saved the boy's life.

I guess Jesus isn't as powerful as a plastic tube jammed down your pee-hole.
But parents certainly have the right to tell them Jesus can heal urinary tract blockages, don't they?

In March, the boy's 15-month-old cousin Ava Worthington died at home from bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection.

Her parents, Carl and Raylene Worthington, also belong to the church. They have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter and criminal mistreatment, and their defense attorneys have indicated that they will use a religious freedom defense.

After earlier deaths involving children of Followers of Christ believers, a 1999 Oregon law struck down religious shields for parents who treat their children solely with prayer. No one had been prosecuted under it until the Worthingtons' case.

Anyone want to argue for the freedom that this poor kid's parents were exercising?

Strawmen. Attempting to argue the very basic point that the government shouldn't proscribe private religious speech with you is an exercise in futility. In an attempt to bolster your Stalinist desires, you're now equating teaching one's children belief in hell because one (gasp!) actually believes in hell is tantamount to withholding necessary medical care.

I know you have a testimony that hell is not real, and that teaching one's children about hell is an instance of child abuse, and that nothing could ever make you change your mind, and I know you believe that anyone who believes the opposite of you with regard to the reality of hell should be sought out and punished by a thought-suppressive government bureaucracy, and I know that you say all these things in the name of Richard Dawkins, Amen.

Heck, I can't argue with that.

Most of the time the Thought Police are their own worst enemies in the arena of public discourse.

Your presentation thus far has been, shall we say, lacking in logical rigor. In fact, it is a textbook example of begging the question, through and through.

I don't see any payoff for continuing to mistake your thread for a serious discussion.

Chris

[_asbestosman]

Anyone want to argue for the freedom that this poor kid's parents were exercising?

Not me. I hope you can see the difference between witholding medical care from a child and warning them about a hell you believe exists.

Let's take another side with something that does exist. Do you believe it's inappropriate to tell children the explicit details about what child molesters do and that any adult could be one? I do. I believe the appropriate thing to teach children is to stay away from strangers, to always let parents know where they are, and to explain in general terms that it is wrong for people to touch them in areas that are covered by their bathing suits / underwear. That's the appropriate level of warning.

Simlarly I believe that one can also warn children about the dangers they believe exist in hell without overly-traumatizing the child.

Furthermore I do wonder about how abusive it is to scare children. Is it really abusive to tell children about the boogie man in forest? Is it abusive to let (not force) them watch scary movies which give them nightmares?

[_Paul Kemp]

I don't see any payoff for continuing to mistake your thread for a serious discussion.

Yet Chris (who feels it necessary to end his posts with "Chris" as if we need to know that Chris was the author of the post) is the first to jump at the chance to reply.

Strawmen.

OK. If you say so. I still don't think parents have the right to emotionally abuse their kids with stories of a fairy tale place where they will burn for eternity for sinning, nor do I think it is ok to tell children Jesus will heal their urinary tract infections.

All your other nonsense about praying to Richard Dawkins and the Thought Police, is a distraction and besides the point. I might even call them straw man arguments.

[_Paul Kemp]

Anyone want to argue for the freedom that this poor kid's parents were exercising?

Not me. I hope you can see the difference between witholding medical care from a child and warning them about a hell you believe exists.

With all due respect, I think you might be misreading the article I posted a link to. The parents did not simply withhold medical care, they taught a child that Jesus is a reasonable method of treating a disease that the child later died from. I hope you see the difference as well.

Let's take another side with something that does exist. Do you believe it's inappropriate to tell children the explicit details about what child molesters do and that any adult could be one? I do. I believe the appropriate thing to teach children is to stay away from strangers, to always let parents know where they are, and to explain in general terms that it is wrong for people to touch them in areas that are covered by their bathing suits / underwear. That's the appropriate level of warning.

I agree.

Simlarly I believe that one can also warn children about the dangers they believe exist in hell without overly-traumatizing the child.

I agree, specifically with what I bolded.

Furthermore I do wonder about how abusive it is to scare children. Is it really abusive to tell children about the boogie man in forest? Is it abusive to let (not force) them watch scary movies which give them nightmares?

I'll comment on this part a bit more later. I want to pull up some old articles.

[_Droopy]

Strawmen. Attempting to argue the very basic point that the government shouldn't proscribe private religious speech with you is an exercise in futility. In an attempt to bolster your Stalinist desires, you're now equating teaching one's children belief in hell because one (gasp!) actually believes in hell is tantamount to withholding necessary medical care.

Salmon is, of course, right on here. Metaphysical beliefs in a heaven, hell, spirit world, angels, miracles etc., are a far flung distance from the isolated extremes of Scientology or the ministrations of an Amazonian Shaman. And, for all of this, most people I know, Mormon, Christian, Catholic, or of whatever belief system, would rely, simultaneously upon both secular medical technology (which all Christians and Mormons I know believe is a blessing of God and a part of his providence) and their faith, seeing the two not as dichotomistic but as synergistic.

For every Pop John Paul or C.S. Lewis there is a David Koresh, a Benny Hinn, or a Ram Dass. For every thousand serious Christians, ether is an extremist or a fantasist. So be it, that is the nature of the human condition. That Kemp must single out the isolated extremes to make his point is telling.

[_Droopy]

Kemp's flaccid pop atheism is both repulsive and intellectually squishy. Not even really stimulating enough to engage systematically, especially given its lack of systematic exposition.

[_asbestosman]

Let's take another side with something that does exist. Do you believe it's inappropriate to tell children the explicit details about what child molesters do and that any adult could be one? I do. I believe the appropriate thing to teach children is to stay away from strangers, to always let parents know where they are, and to explain in general terms that it is wrong for people to touch them in areas that are covered by their bathing suits / underwear. That's the appropriate level of warning.

I agree.

Simlarly I believe that one can also warn children about the dangers they believe exist in hell without overly-traumatizing the child.

I agree, specifically with what I bolded.

Then we are mostly in agreement. The only thing we may disagree on is what level of traumatizing a child is abusive and when the government should step in. I think anything can be taken too far. Witholding praise from a child may be abusive too, but I don't think the government should necessarily interfere. When should it interfere? Certainly with the medical examples. What else? I think it's tricky.

[_Paul Kemp]

[

Salmon is, of course, right on here.

Of course. Anyone that says something Droopy agrees with is right on. But be careful to disagree with Droopy, you might turn into a liberal. Droopy's display would be a lot more comical if I didn't think he took himself so seriously.

That Kemp must single out the isolated extremes to make his point is telling.

But of course. An incident that happened last week is quite an isolated extreme. Especially when two children of the same lineage have died as a result of their parents "freedom of religion" THIS YEAR. How dare I dig so deep in the news cycle and think an article posted to CNN's website yesterday is anything but an isolated extreme.


Keep using words you think sound smart, Droopy. You aren't fooling anyone here.

"That long hair can't hide that red neck, boy."

[_Droopy]

Of course. Anyone that says something Droopy agrees with is right on.

This is normally the case, yes. Indeed, it could be understood as a logical necessity.

But of course. An incident that happened last week is quite an isolated extreme. Especially when two children of the same lineage have died as a result of their parents "freedom of religion" THIS YEAR. How dare I dig so deep in the news cycle and think an article posted to CNN's website yesterday is anything but an isolated extreme.

Do you not understand that you are killing your own positoin here?

I didn't think so.

Move on, nothing to see here.