Stop the Nightmares

[_asbestosman]

What does one thing have to do with the other? Having the right to believe something does not give someone the right to scare the s*** out of children to the point that it is emotional abuse.

Fair enough. My parents / church did not scare me about hell to the point that it was emotional abuse (I was more scared of dying in a fire for some time because of school safety videos). I don't know anyone who does scare their kids that much although I suppose it's possible. I don't think warning them about what they feel are consequences of sin counts as emotional abuse any more than warning kids about the danger of playing with fire (or of not having a fire safety plan prepared).

[_Paul Kemp]

What does one thing have to do with the other? Having the right to believe something does not give someone the right to scare the s*** out of children to the point that it is emotional abuse.

Fair enough. My parents / church did not scare me about hell to the point that it was emotional abuse (I was more scared of dying in a fire for some time because of school safety videos). I don't know anyone who does scare their kids that much although I suppose it's possible. I don't think warning them about what they feel are consequences of sin counts as emotional abuse any more than warning kids about the danger of playing with fire (or of not having a fire safety plan prepared).

Playing with fire is a legitimate danger. Going to hell is not. No one is going to hell once they die. Using this mythical place to torment children into following a religion is a lot different than teaching them the natural consequences of certain actions.

[_cksalmon]

Okay, I just caught this. I'm slow. I think maybe Paul is just pulling our collective leg.

Do parents have the right to scare the bejesus out of their kids in the name of their God de jour?

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose. We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us. -- Mario Cuomo

;-)

Chris

What does one thing have to do with the other? Having the right to believe something does not give someone the right to scare the s*** out of children to the point that it is emotional abuse.

Hey Paul--

If you really have to ask, I'm not sure I could provide a road map to get you from Point A to Point B.

I'll give you a hint, though: you apparently want the Government to take action to actively suppress private speech--let alone public speech (and, you're just as wrong to want the Government to actively suppress public speech)--in the confines of one's home.

How on earth would one enact this Orwellian, draconian, inquisitional policy (no offense to Orwell, who seems like a good guy)? Would one make it against the law to voice one's beliefs privately in one's home to one's children? Is that what you want? How would one enforce this? Via the interrogation of children to see if their parents are teaching "illegal beliefs?"

Sort of a secular Inquisition, I suppose.

I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or non-believer, or as anything else you choose. We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us. -- Mario Cuomo

Presumably, I suppose, Cuomo never taught his children or allowed them to be taught the Catholic belief in hell. He has the right to think it, but not to speak about it, right?

By your logic, the way Cuomo might preserve your "right to believe" as a "non-believer" would be to ensure, via governmental enforcement, that you don't speak--publicly or privately--about your lack of belief.

Is that about right?

Chris

[_Paul Kemp]

Is that about right?

Chris

Thanks for the roadmap and straw man, Chris, but I'm afraid you have it all wrong.

We are talking about a certain kind of emotional abuse, not supressing free speech. Nice try though.

[_asbestosman]

Playing with fire is a legitimate danger. Going to hell is not. No one is going to hell once they die. Using this mythical place to torment children into following a religion is a lot different than teaching them the natural consequences of certain actions.

But as far as some parents know, hell is a natural consequence of actions just as prison is a natural consequence of crime and death is a natural consequence of war. Hell is not used to torment children into following a religion any more than prison is used to torment children (or adults) into following certain societal standards.

I'm glad you get determine for us what beliefs about the afterlife are legitimate. If it is legitimate to believe that there are dangers in the afterlife, why then is it wrong to warn children about those dangers? Was it wrong to torment kids about surviving nuclear attacks in the 50's and 60's even though the Soviets never launched one against us?

[_cksalmon]

Is that about right?

Chris

Thanks for the roadmap and straw man, Chris, but I'm afraid you have it all wrong.

We are talking about a certain kind of emotional abuse, not supressing free speech. Nice try though.

That's hardly a sufficient answer, Paul.

If hell is real, does it constitute emotional abuse to teach one's children about hell?

I reject your premise of "emotional abuse" out of hand.

Here's your argument, as I see it.

(1) Hell is not real.
(2) Teaching about hell, therefore, constitutes emotional abuse.
(3) Therefore, the Government should suppress any and all teaching about hell, even in the privacy of one's home.

And if I reject (1)?

In your world, too bad. I'm wrong because I don't believe the same things you believe. My rights should be suppressed because I don't believe the same things you believe. The Government should force me to never voice my beliefs out loud, because I don't believe the same things you believe. Your beliefs should be functionally forced upon me and I should avoid contradicting your beliefs, because I don't believe the same things you believe. It's okay for me to have different beliefs, but I should not be allowed to talk about them, because I don't believe the same things you believe.

And, here's the idiot Cuomo in the corner muttering, "We know that the price of seeking to force our beliefs on others is that they might some day force theirs on us."

The only way your charge of emotional abuse might even possibly stand is if you first assume that hell is not real. The only way that you can urge government suppression of free speech is because you believe that your beliefs should be definitive of the thoughts that get spoken out loud.

In essence, you want the Government to force me to view your beliefs as normative and definitive. My beliefs should be governmentally suppressed. And, you apparently believe that, if I reject your assumption that hell is not real, then I forfeit my right to voice my beliefs. The Gesta..Government should ferret me out and punish me as a criminal for daring to speak my beliefs out loud. Only by agreeing with your beliefs would I have the right to voice my beliefs.

What a wretchedly-pathetic dystopia you apparently favor.

See it lovingly revered here.

Chris

[_Paul Kemp]

Playing with fire is a legitimate danger. Going to hell is not. No one is going to hell once they die. Using this mythical place to torment children into following a religion is a lot different than teaching them the natural consequences of certain actions.

But as far as some parents know, hell is a natural consequence of actions just as prison is a natural consequence of crime and death is a natural consequence of war. Hell is not used to torment children into following a religion any more than prison is used to torment children (or adults) into following certain societal standards.

I'm glad you get determine for us what beliefs about the afterlife are legitimate. If it is legitimate to believe that there are dangers in the afterlife, why then is it wrong to warn children about those dangers? Was it wrong to torment kids about surviving nuclear attacks in the 50's and 60's even though the Soviets never launched one against us?

You keep comparing real dangers with Hell. Hell is not a real place people go after they are dead.

Would you also allow parents to tell their children that if they didn't behave Santa Claus would come along and butt-rape them on Christmas Eve?

I suppose there is just enough evidence for a butt-raping Santa as there is a demonic red man with a pitch fork waiting to torture sinners with fire and brimstone. And heck, if I want to believe in a butt-raping Santa Clause why not, right? That is my right, isn't it? And I should be able to tell my children what ever I believe, right?

[_asbestosman]

You keep comparing real dangers with Hell. Hell is not a real place people go after they are dead.

Does the government have the right to make that determination?

Would you also allow parents to tell their children that if they didn't behave Santa Claus would come along and butt-rape them on Christmas Eve?

Most parents do not get so explicit with their children. A child-appropriate warning could be given without the gory details. There is a difference between traumatizing a child to manipulate her and appropriately warning a child about what you believe to be real dangers. I do not see abuse in the latter. I don't care if you think that aliens will abduct you unless you wear foil helmets and teach that to your children. That is your right so long as you pose no danger to your children (perhaps from mental instability, but maybe you are stable).

[_TygerFang]

let people believe in religion, it's their choice. Trying to make people not talk about what they believe with their children is another step closer to trying to force them to raise their kids how you think is the best way to raise them.

[_cksalmon]

let people believe in religion, it's their choice. Trying to make people not talk about what they believe with their children is another step closer to trying to force them to raise their kids how you think is the best way to raise them.

I think this is actually Kemp's endgame, rather than a mere stepping stone. Kemp apparently hopes that, in his Brave New World, private, familial communication regarding a parent's belief in the reality of hell will be censored, prohibited, monitored, and punished by a Right-Thinking Government Bureaucracy.

Folks like myself might well be glad that Good Kemp does not occupy the position of Inquisitor General of the United States.

And that we don't have one.

In what has to be the saddest refuge of any arguer of anything, Good Kemp apparently desires that beliefs that don't conform with his own be governmentally monitored, outlawed, and suppressed.

Free speech is, then, tantamount to agreeing with Paul.

I'd recommend this series.

Chris