4-year-old "Aint no homos gonna make it to heaven"

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Here is the article: http://ronkemp.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/4-year-old-sings-aint-no-homos-gonna.html

So the obvious improper grammar aside, it is a bit sickening to say the least that this community has planted a hate seed in this barely developed human being's mind. I highly doubt that him singing that was his choice and was very clearly pushed upon him by his parents or some authority figure in the church itself. The song along would be enough to enrage some people, but the fact it was responded to with thunderous applause and cheers from the members of the church is ludicrous. I wish I could say that it is baffeling, but I am not surprised that there are more "churches" like this. I would say they have fallen from the path of their faith because they should be helping those with troubled lives, not cause the trouble themselves. Even the church I went to embraced homosexuality (I am formerly Christan, now agnositc) and is a very strong community that I am sure would be a bit ashamed of them, but would probably pray for them to find their way back. At the risk of going too far into another topic, I think I should lighten this up somewhat with a good dose of Stephen Colbert.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414120/may-10-2012/barack-obama-s-gay-blasphemy

(I don't know how to embed that video, sorry >_<)

To be honest he's too young to even know what being gay is, so all it is indoctrination. I just hope that one day he'll grow up and realise that he's wrong.

They won't teach adolescents safe sex practices but they'll teach a four year old that homos and buttsex are bad. The sheer level of suppression and projection going on in the Bible Belt is staggering. Totally unsurprising that it's the area of the US with the most STDs spread, the highest divorce rate, and the highest rate of adultery.

I love it :) Every hateful, bigoted statement coming from these religious people only weakens their Church.

image

Of either the song or the people clapping and cheering. Sickening.

Sometimes, I get people who are somewhat awestruck of my strong "no, you cannot teach your children whatever you want" attitude, my strong opposition to home-schooling, my insistence that we teach that certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated... This is why.

Stagnant:
Sometimes, I get people who are somewhat awestruck of my strong "no, you cannot teach your children whatever you want" attitude, my strong opposition to home-schooling, my insistence that we teach that certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated... This is why.

I think it has more to do with your extreme for all religion. People should have the right to teach kids whatever they like as look as it doesn't result in discrimination and violence for others.

And yet the ultra-Christian right-wing folks accuse me and other homosexuals of being the ones who want to indoctrinate and brainwash children...

Helmholtz Watson:
I think it has more to do with your extreme for all religion. People should have the right to teach kids whatever they like as look as it doesn't result in discrimination and violence for others.

And that is exactly what this does.

Stagnant:
Sometimes, I get people who are somewhat awestruck of my strong "no, you cannot teach your children whatever you want" attitude, my strong opposition to home-schooling, my insistence that we teach that certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated... This is why.

Little kids are quite malleable. Sure, that means they can be taught all kinds of horrid stuff. But that also means they can be un-taught it. Just look at the duo Prussian Blue. Sure, they were taught horrible, Nazi-style hatred by their mother and propped up on stage much like this little singer is (only with hundreds of neo-Nazis in the audience and international tours). But, they've also out-grown some of that bullshit as they've gotten older and recanted some of their views. Perhaps not as many views as polite society would recommend, but given how badly they've been indoctrinated it's a reasonable start.

The point is the damage done by this kind of parenting is by no means permanent, and any attempt to legislate against it is unreasonable and unfeasible.

Helmholtz Watson:

Stagnant:
Sometimes, I get people who are somewhat awestruck of my strong "no, you cannot teach your children whatever you want" attitude, my strong opposition to home-schooling, my insistence that we teach that certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated... This is why.

I think it has more to do with your extreme for all religion. People should have the right to teach kids whatever they like as long as it doesn't result in discrimination and violence for others.

I really don't know how to respond to this. If it's not fucking blatantly obvious to you that this kind of thing causes hatred, discrimination, and violence, then I don't even know what to say. And beyond that, I disagree with the basic premise of this - parents have a responsibility to raise their children to become members of society. If they can't do that, then that's a problem. Teaching them "whatever they want" is not okay, because it doesn't allow for any protection against parental abuse of the malleable mind of a child.

@Katatori: so what? Why hope that they fix themselves somehow, rather than making sure they never get "broken" in the first place?

The part that really pissed me off was the applause for it. At the risk of a No True Scotsmen, I would like to hence forth call these people False Christians(not as a technical term, but as a subtle insult to them) simply for being such incredible hypocrites. Or AntiChristians for being such douchebags.

Stagnant:

@Katatori: so what? Why hope that they fix themselves somehow, rather than making sure they never get "broken" in the first place?

Because, as always, you are not the king of the world who knows only truth and can tell all the people what is and is not "broken."

LetalisK:
The part that really pissed me off was the applause for it. At the risk of a No True Scotsmen, I would like to hence forth call these people False Christians(not as a technical term, but as a subtle insult to them) simply for being such incredible hypocrites. Or AntiChristians for being such douchebags.

I feel like it's pretty clear that someone is no true Christian when they decide to make up their own church for the funzies. People deciding in 2007 that no existing denomination represented the amount of "apostolic truth" they were aiming for are almost certainly some level of douchebag.

tstorm823:
Because, as always, you are not the king of the world who knows only truth and can tell all the people what is and is not "broken."

Hypothetical. A parent spends their child's entire life convincing it that suicide bombing is what their god demands of them.

Can we then agree that that is "broken"? What if the child then later goes and kills himself blowing up a bus for Jahweh?

Clearly we are able to, to a certain degree, determine what is right and wrong in parenting. I'd go so far as to say that teaching your kids (who might be gay!) that gay people deserve to die and then be tortured forever is a pretty obvious no-no. Wouldn't you agree?

Katatori-kun:

Little kids are quite malleable. Sure, that means they can be taught all kinds of horrid stuff. But that also means they can be un-taught it. Just look at the duo Prussian Blue. Sure, they were taught horrible, Nazi-style hatred by their mother and propped up on stage much like this little singer is (only with hundreds of neo-Nazis in the audience and international tours). But, they've also out-grown some of that bullshit as they've gotten older and recanted some of their views. Perhaps not as many views as polite society would recommend, but given how badly they've been indoctrinated it's a reasonable start.

The point is the damage done by this kind of parenting is by no means permanent, and any attempt to legislate against it is unreasonable and unfeasible.

Well said. That is my hope in this situation. That the kids, like this young boy, will grow out of this vile way of thinking. While I don't believe opposition for homosexuality will ever be completely gone, I am sure that it is dropping a lot faster than it ever has before now that it has been brought to light. Though instances like this will slow the decline, so long as the majority of childern are taught to be more accepting of others and not judge others over things such as their sexuality, the bullying, hazing, and inhuman circumstances that homosexual people have been facing will fade away in the long awaited acceptance.

Dan Merchant, a Christian man, made a documentary trying to find out why so many people have a negative view of Christianity. He discovered that one of the biggest reasons people turn away from Christianity is Christians. A pity videos like this show up providing more proof of this idea.

Stagnant:

Hypothetical. A parent spends their child's entire life convincing it that suicide bombing is what their god demands of them.

Can we then agree that that is "broken"? What if the child then later goes and kills himself blowing up a bus for Jahweh?

Clearly we are able to, to a certain degree, determine what is right and wrong in parenting. I'd go so far as to say that teaching your kids (who might be gay!) that gay people deserve to die and then be tortured forever is a pretty obvious no-no. Wouldn't you agree?

I would personally disagree with that line of teaching, I would address the situation if I knew the people personally, and I'd agree that from our perspectives, people would be better without such events...

BUT!

a) I am not infallible and do not reject the possiblity that I am wrong and someone else is right, and as such am perfectly fine with someone else doing something that I think is wrong if that "wrong" is not DIRECT harm to someone else.
b) I believe that while we each, indivdually, have a societal responsibility to try and help one another, to try and provide alternative ways of thinking to the children in a case like you posed, that is a personal action dependant on each person's beliefs just as much as the parents' actions, and this is not some action to be made by some group that says "you cannot" as in "you are not allowed to," because literally, you cannot force people to be better by your standards.

DrVornoff:
Dan Merchant, a Christian man, made a documentary trying to find out why so many people have a negative view of Christianity. He discovered that one of the biggest reasons people turn away from Christianity is Christians. A pity videos like this show up providing more proof of this idea.

Best part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

(I shall leave the entire "atheism" section to both draw the controversy AND stick it to the people who for some reason think the Catholic Church is sitting arrogantly with its ears shut.)

Bolded for relevance.

LetalisK:
The part that really pissed me off was the applause for it. At the risk of a No True Scotsmen, I would like to hence forth call these people False Christians(not as a technical term, but as a subtle insult to them) simply for being such incredible hypocrites. Or AntiChristians for being such douchebags.

their intolerance and being hypocrites matches the bible more then what is considered a "normal christian"

Boris Goodenough:

Helmholtz Watson:
I think it has more to do with your extreme for all religion. People should have the right to teach kids whatever they like as look as it doesn't result in discrimination and violence for others.

And that is exactly what this does.

It can be, but its not always the case.

Suave Charlie:
I just hope that one day he'll grow up and realise that he's wrong.

Yeah it's just. Let's all hope that Commander Shepard realizes that it was a mistake to chose to:


before it's all too late and we become Reaper food.

...anyone see my point? No? That's because I'm tired :P

------------

The number of people who break themselves out of this community driven indoctrination is few in comparison to the people it traps. If raised like this then more than often people must be broken out rather than just breaking out themselves.

Hopefully the education system and society at large will give the child the power to use logic at a very basic level so he won't believe everything he's bloody told by someone just because they are quoting the bible. However I'm still skeptical that this can happen in certain states of the USA...

Comando96:

The number of people who break themselves out of this community driven indoctrination is few in comparison to the people it traps. If raised like this then more than often people must be broken out rather than just breaking out themselves.

I was going to respond to this asking whatever happened to the "kids do the opposite of what their parents say" cliche, and was gonna point out that most of the atheists on here weren't born into it and that growing churches presently are only doing so based on adult converts... you know, try and say that people aren't just slaves to whatever their parents say. But then you said

Hopefully the education system and society at large will give the child the power to use logic at a very basic level.

And I lol'd. "Society at large," or atleast the one you're referring to, is just a group of disjointed individuals that interact with other people's kids as minimalistically as possible. "The education system" is designed to promote rote memorization and is too busy trying to make kids learn evolutionary charts or read the Grapes of Wrath that there's no time or budget left for actually teaching logic.

Stagnant:
Sometimes, I get people who are somewhat awestruck of my strong "no, you cannot teach your children whatever you want" attitude, my strong opposition to home-schooling, my insistence that we teach that certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated... This is why.

I'm somewhat awestruck at your belief that state indoctrination is somehow superior to parental indoctrination (in reference to your opposition to homeschooling). I went to public school once upon a time. From what I remember certain people spewed the same kind of crap about gay's going to hell and having their peers slap them on the back for telling it like it is.

Anyways, it's good to hear that only certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated. Except how would we go about not tolerating those beliefs? Intolerance typically has been pretty violent, or at least ugly, in retrospect.

Katatori-kun:
-snip-

Kata, in the other thread (the trainwreck of a thread, you know the one) you expressed your opposition to the idea that some forms of religious upbringing could be considered child abuse.

Is the OP not a perfect case in point?

Or, something like this?

Sure, you could well argue that this kind of bigotry is at least partially political - but it's telling that you seldom see young children indoctrinated into political views ("My name's Bobby, I'm four, and I put it to you that the fiscal defecit is clear evidence of government mismanagement"). To paraphrase a Dawkinsism, we would shudder to hear children (who are too young to understand politics) described as "a Republican child" or "a Liberal child" or "a Marxist child". So why is it ok to say "my 4-year old is a Muslim" or "that's a Christian toddler"?

Religion is just one kind of paradigm or ideology among many; there are also political ideologies, cultural norms and so on - but religion is the only school of thought that claims divine right as its justification. Other ideologies may well claim the moral high-ground, or to be most logically sound, or the most utilitarian way of doing things... all powerful bargaining chips, but these all at least imply a degree of relativism or personal preference. Religion operates from an absolutist position, which is what makes it the most powerful as a potential tool of coercion. Wouldn't this also make it the most potent and potentially dangerous kind of ideology to be exposing impressionable young children to?

Yeah, I'm with the people saying that the child currently doesn't even understand what he's singing. That said, he will grow up with that sentiment and as he learns more, that incomprehensible content will become clearer and gain more context and, eventually, he has a high likelihood of being like his parents.

Comando96:

The number of people who break themselves out of this community driven indoctrination is few in comparison to the people it traps. If raised like this then more than often people must be broken out rather than just breaking out themselves.

Few in comparison, yes. And it's horribly, terribly hard. Lifelong PTSD hard. Some of the most cogent and well-informed voices of the "this is what Dominionism is" movement are walkaways from Dominionist cell churches, and some of them have written about what the psychological damage is like and how hard it is to heal.

But, and it's a big but... breaking people out doesn't work. That's basically deprogramming, and the findings from that are mixed, at best. There are things that can be done, but things that will create martyrs should be avoided. What's best is trying to interfere with the efforts of groups like these to create a completely closed society. Some of these kids never meet someone who doesn't agree with their ideology-- they're homeschooled, they marry each other, they work for Dominionist-owned companies, etc. Like Scientology, actually. When they have a chance to be exposed to contradicting information, it works. Also, support services for the people who do try to leave, because those are *incredibly* thin on the ground.

This is, basically, the hell of everyone involved in trying to help people in cults, how do you stop people from being victimized without writing a law that will unduly burden noncult minorities? Ideally, be more restrictive over what's officially seen as "religion", but while I'd trust some European countries to make that distinction (and ban Scientology!), I'd never trust the US to. The answer would end up being "whatever isn't Christian!" which just makes the problem worse.

aPod:

I'm somewhat awestruck at your belief that state indoctrination is somehow superior to parental indoctrination (in reference to your opposition to homeschooling).

Okay. You want to know why I believe that?

In a family, (two parents and a child), there are approximately 2 authority figures who have sought each other out and live their lives together. There's not really much room for dissenting opinions, and there's nothing forcing the parents to "mild it down somewhat".
In a government, there are hundreds of authority figures who are forced to take orders from millions of individuals with different opinions. The extremes average out in a way through the sheer number of people involved.

I went to public school once upon a time. From what I remember certain people spewed the same kind of crap about gay's going to hell and having their peers slap them on the back for telling it like it is.

Then there's an oversight problem.

Anyways, it's good to hear that only certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated. Except how would we go about not tolerating those beliefs? Intolerance typically has been pretty violent, or at least ugly, in retrospect.

Well, that logic allows for a hell of a lot of child abuse, now, doesn't it? And yes, let's equivocate intolerance of intolerance with intolerance of immutable characteristics and see how far that gets us.

tstorm823:

Stagnant:

Hypothetical. A parent spends their child's entire life convincing it that suicide bombing is what their god demands of them.

Can we then agree that that is "broken"? What if the child then later goes and kills himself blowing up a bus for Jahweh?

Clearly we are able to, to a certain degree, determine what is right and wrong in parenting. I'd go so far as to say that teaching your kids (who might be gay!) that gay people deserve to die and then be tortured forever is a pretty obvious no-no. Wouldn't you agree?

I would personally disagree with that line of teaching, I would address the situation if I knew the people personally, and I'd agree that from our perspectives, people would be better without such events...

BUT!

a) I am not infallible and do not reject the possiblity that I am wrong and someone else is right, and as such am perfectly fine with someone else doing something that I think is wrong if that "wrong" is not DIRECT harm to someone else.
b) I believe that while we each, indivdually, have a societal responsibility to try and help one another, to try and provide alternative ways of thinking to the children in a case like you posed, that is a personal action dependant on each person's beliefs just as much as the parents' actions, and this is not some action to be made by some group that says "you cannot" as in "you are not allowed to," because literally, you cannot force people to be better by your standards.

At what point does it become child abuse? Seriously. At what point can we say that a parent's teachings are scarring a child? If I mentally tormented my children to the point that they grew up to be complete psychopaths, would that not be child abuse? WHY THE FUCK NOT?! And if it is child abuse, how is this, indoctrinating a child to the point where they feel obligated to hate and attack others on the basis of immutable qualities, any different?

I reject the possibility that what this kid's parents have done is not wrong. I believe that society has a responsibility to protect its children when the parents have failed, and I believe that religious indoctrination into intolerance and hatred, the kind of hatred that leads to violence and skyrocketing suicide rates, is failure, whether the parents think it is or not. I think that traumatizing children with the idea of infinite torture and pain is child abuse. Do you want to tell me I'm wrong? Great. Gimme a few hours to talk to your 5-year-old. Just talk to them. I won't touch them, just talk to them. You wouldn't do it, would you? Of course not, because it's tantamount to fucking child abuse.

tstorm823:
And I lol'd. "Society at large," or atleast the one you're referring to, is just a group of disjointed individuals that interact with other people's kids as minimalistically as possible. "The education system" is designed to promote rote memorization and is too busy trying to make kids learn evolutionary charts or read the Grapes of Wrath that there's no time or budget left for actually teaching logic.

Hence why I said hopefully. I fully well know that for a good lot of these kids it won't. Therefore must rely on individuals challenging these people's view in public, in the format of the media, the internet, political arena and maybe even just people you work with. Society can do some wonderful things but you should never rely on it to put out...

Polarity27:
-snip-

My knowledge of this when I typed it was it's easier to stop people getting indoctrinated than it is to undo the process.
That and I pretty much agree with you for most parts. My statement about breaking people out was severely simplified ("I'm tired") and I know most people won't fully recover but could be helped out to certain degree's.

Well, these people have their own idea of heaven and what criteria one must fulfill to get there, and they teach their children just like any other christians. Their idea of heaven is no more wrong than that of the people who think you can't get there if you purposefully ejaculate in a container other than the human body.

Either people have the right to both teach their children that homosexuality is wrong and that coming in a latex wrapper is evil, or they have the right to neither.
Personally, I think they should have the right to neither, but I seem to be in a minority there.

Yes, their worldview is digusting to someone who bases their morality on human worth and empirical evidence, but it's just as valid and well founded as any other religious worldview. I don't see why other people who base their morality on pleasing their god instead of treating humans well see this as reprehensible.

Stagnant:

Helmholtz Watson:

Stagnant:
Sometimes, I get people who are somewhat awestruck of my strong "no, you cannot teach your children whatever you want" attitude, my strong opposition to home-schooling, my insistence that we teach that certain religious beliefs cannot be tolerated... This is why.

I think it has more to do with your extreme for all religion. People should have the right to teach kids whatever they like as long as it doesn't result in discrimination and violence for others.

I really don't know how to respond to this. If it's not fucking blatantly obvious to you that this kind of thing causes hatred, discrimination, and violence, then I don't even know what to say. And beyond that, I disagree with the basic premise of this - parents have a responsibility to raise their children to become members of society. If they can't do that, then that's a problem. Teaching them "whatever they want" is not okay, because it doesn't allow for any protection against parental abuse of the malleable mind of a child.

@Katatori: so what? Why hope that they fix themselves somehow, rather than making sure they never get "broken" in the first place?

And hope they don't do any Nazi shit for or vote for discriminatory policies or whatever for the what, 10, 20, 30 years until they 'come around'?

Because to me that sounds like "If we let a fire take its course and give it no additional fuel it'll burn itself out" as a solution to a lack of firefighters.

Stagnant:

tstorm823:
Because, as always, you are not the king of the world who knows only truth and can tell all the people what is and is not "broken."

Hypothetical. A parent spends their child's entire life convincing it that suicide bombing is what their god demands of them.

Can we then agree that that is "broken"? What if the child then later goes and kills himself blowing up a bus for Jahweh?

Clearly we are able to, to a certain degree, determine what is right and wrong in parenting. I'd go so far as to say that teaching your kids (who might be gay!) that gay people deserve to die and then be tortured forever is a pretty obvious no-no. Wouldn't you agree?

Tstorm, you realize that we already have child abuse laws that dictate how a child can and can't be raised? Are you suggesting that we get rid of them similarly because parents know best?

And yet, when people don't want to get rid of them why not?

Because they've decided they're morally right and that teaching your kid to suck your dick at 5 years old is wrong morally? Are you the king of the world to tell me what is or isn't harmful to my kid? But apparently society in that case thinks it is. Why is that?

It sounds a lot like a case of 'my shit don't stink'.

Batou667:

Katatori-kun:
-snip-

Kata, in the other thread (the trainwreck of a thread, you know the one) you expressed your opposition to the idea that some forms of religious upbringing could be considered child abuse.

Is the OP not a perfect case in point?

No. Because it's almost certain that the child in question doesn't understand what they're saying. It could be argued that the child is being weaponized somehow, which is certainly inappropriate. But they aren't being harmed themselves.

Like I said earlier, this is not a case of it being right what the parents have taught this child to sing. It's a case of it simply being unfeasible or unreasonable to come up with effective policy for how to involve child custody over the doctrine a child is taught. In order to do that you have to either:

A) legislate that certain ideas are unacceptable to teach to children, a notion that is abhorrent to the US Bill of Rights, or:

B) dedicate tremendous resources to child services so that social workers can be trained with the expertise to be able to accurately separate cases like this from cases where the child is merely taught uncommon or unconventional doctrines. Furthermore, because this requires humans to make judgments about a topic that is one hell of a grey area, you have to accept that sometimes social workers will make the wrong choice and that may mean that children get taken from their parents or their parents get temporarily marked as child abusers for things that aren't abuse. It's entirely concievable that due to the level of funding that goes into social services that some child welfare office gets stuck with someone who believes, for example, that raising a child in atheism is a form of abuse, because it teaches a child to fear death as a final end to life after which there is nothing (not saying this is my position, but it is not unreasonable to imagine someone thinking it.) Are you prepared to accept that sometimes atheist children get taken from their parents or their parents get labelled as child abusers just to stop parents from teaching their children to sing stupid songs about homosexuals?

It's just unrealistic. Sometimes parents teach their kids things that they shouldn't. Until we outlaw use of the uterus and grow our entire population in vats where children immediately get sent to government education camps, it's just something we have to accept is going to happen.

The only reasonable way to deal with this is to make schools effective counters to extreme ideology. Since schools already have a charter to protect the students there from harm, and since some students at any school are almost certain to be homosexual, schools are already empowered to deal with homophobic bullying and hatred. That means our correct course of action as a society should not be in trying to prevent parents from raising their children in beliefs we find unacceptable, but fighting these ultra-conservative attempts to protect homophobic bullying through legislature that denies schools the powers they need to do their jobs.

Sure, you could well argue that this kind of bigotry is at least partially political - but it's telling that you seldom see young children indoctrinated into political views ("My name's Bobby, I'm four, and I put it to you that the fiscal defecit is clear evidence of government mismanagement").

I disagree. I think we see within the same ball-park. It just flies under the radar because A) a lot more people are politically apathetic, and B) because depending on the society, extreme political positions may get a pass. If a child starts ranting about the free market being a perfect solution to all problems, well, they probably aren't going to sound too different from many prominent politicians on that topic. If there is a difference, it's likely because the terminology used to describe politics is often well outside of a child's vocabulary, but anyone can understand a principle of "God loves x; God hates y."

I may be giving away my age a bit, but in elementary school I almost came to blows with my best friend over the Bush Sr. vs. Dukakis election. My family were going to vote for Bush, his for Dukakis. Truthfully, neither of us kids were old enough to know a damn thing about the issues of the election. My friend just sang the Busch Beer jingle at me (suggesting that Busch = Bush and therefore Bush Sr. was an alcoholic) and I tried to give some incoherent explanation of how Dukakis's plan to subsidize child care meant that we were all going to pay for irresponsible people having babies. Neither of us had a clue what we were saying- we were just fighting because those were the sides our families were on. And we weren't even "indoctrinated". The most I was ever taught about the election was being sat down on a chair one day and my father explaining who he was voting for and why. That's all it took to put me on a course where I wanted to hit the kid the day before I wanted to play Transformers with.

But like I said earlier, kids are malleable. They grow and change. Today I consider myself an independent but I tend to support liberals far more often than conservatives. Meanwhile my pro-Dukakis friend can't talk about Obama on Facebook without tossing in a "baby-killer" comment. This notion that children have to be protected from ever encountering a bad idea assumes that children's minds get locked into keeping for their life whatever they learned when they were 4 years old. And we know that doesn't happen. So the need is not to protect children from ever believing unpopular things, but to protect them from being bullied and to give them the tools they need to learn and choose their own ideas as they get older. We need to teach critical thinking skills, not test-passing skills. We need to teach them to examine ideas for themselves, not that certain ideas are right and certain ideas will get them taken away from their parents.

Well, as long as no discernible harm is done to the child, and what it is taught does not amount to incitement of violence, then there is nothing for the government to do here.

Civic society can of course curse these religious dirt bags all it wants, and do what it can to ostracise them and their vile beliefs, but it is not for the state to censor its citizens through child snatching. As vile and worthless as true Abrahamics are, you'll still have to respect their rights, though certainly not them.

What do you expect from people who think that legalizing gay marriage will somehow undermine marriage despite the fact it has no effect on their marriage?

What do you expect from people who say being gay is evil or bad just look at all the bad it has caused then just trail off in to nonsense about how they can not reproduce despite the fact they can.

What do you expect from people who say I do not hate homosexuals i just do not think they should have marriage or its rights? they may say they will allow it the same right but we all know it is bullshit. Adoption and any indication of it being normal in a school is almost defiantly forbidden.

This is what you expect, and hopefully it is why they will destroy themselves.

Imperator_DK:
Well, as long as no discernible harm is done to the child, and what it is taught does not amount to incitement of violence, then there is nothing for the government to do here.

Define "discernible harm". Imagine if my child, as a direct result of the actions I intentionally took when I raised him, has an absolutely debilitating phobia of heights, spiders, and the dark, to the point where it severely hinders his day-to-day life. Is that "discernible harm"? What if I taught him to hate, and the discernible harm is not coming to him, but to others?

tstorm823:

Stagnant:

Hypothetical. A parent spends their child's entire life convincing it that suicide bombing is what their god demands of them.

Can we then agree that that is "broken"? What if the child then later goes and kills himself blowing up a bus for Jahweh?

Clearly we are able to, to a certain degree, determine what is right and wrong in parenting. I'd go so far as to say that teaching your kids (who might be gay!) that gay people deserve to die and then be tortured forever is a pretty obvious no-no. Wouldn't you agree?

I would personally disagree with that line of teaching, I would address the situation if I knew the people personally, and I'd agree that from our perspectives, people would be better without such events...

BUT!

a) I am not infallible and do not reject the possiblity that I am wrong and someone else is right, and as such am perfectly fine with someone else doing something that I think is wrong if that "wrong" is not DIRECT harm to someone else.
b) I believe that while we each, indivdually, have a societal responsibility to try and help one another, to try and provide alternative ways of thinking to the children in a case like you posed, that is a personal action dependant on each person's beliefs just as much as the parents' actions, and this is not some action to be made by some group that says "you cannot" as in "you are not allowed to," because literally, you cannot force people to be better by your standards.

Wow...that's honestly how you feel about the example given? The teaching of suicide-bombing as an ethical practice? You think it's wrong to condemn that outright? The level of moral-cowardice you're displaying is frightening. I'm sure you're a perfectly lovely chap in reality, but grow some backbone. You don't have to claim to have complete moral authority to be sure enough of yourself to condemn murder-suicide as a practice, let-alone as a practice to be encouraged in offspring.

This bullshit thrives when good people don't have the balls to condemn it.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked