Clove Roy Thanks for sharing this with me in our PM. :)
Children Seized from Parents on Charges of ‘Christian Indoctrination’ in Norway
I recently read a study that demonstrated children who are indoctrinated with religion (especially at an early age), are less able to distinguish fact from fiction. My position on religion (including Christianity) remains, specifically when the well being of children is concerned. I tip my hat to countries that are brave enough to place children rights in such high regards in the face of dogmatic religious opposition.
When I mentioned Ted Haggard, you claimed he was not a 'real Christian'... it's unfortunate that in a congregation of 14k people, that no one could tell he was a faux-christian right up until the conflicting truth came 'out' (of the closet... see what i did there... wakka wakka lol).
I don't think you would argue that spotting a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' within faith based systems, would be helpful to all its believers (especially the kiddos), or that abused children have the right to privacy that outweighs the public's right to media transparency. And, until faith based institutions can recognize that blurring a child's ability to distinguish fact from fiction (even when it's well intended), could make them dangerously gullible, placing them (unintentionally) in harm's way, is by default failing to protect them. I commend any intervention that is on behalf of children, especially when they are being reared to deny fact based evidence, vaccines, blood transfers, etc...
Over the course of our dialogues on religion, I feel that I have a good understanding of your Christian worldview. Which will more than likely deny these studies, and that you will probably take offence to the claim. I'm sure their are more well intended religious parents than ill intended ones, but until religion can demonstrate proof of deities, or even be able to tell who is a 'real christian' and who isn't, than there is no reason to indoctrinate young children, asides from confirming religious bias from their guardians. Use is abuse brother, 6:30!
Christian Wow dude, so from what I glean from your response, you think it's OK for kids to be taken away from their parents because they are being taught to believe in Christ, God and other Christian doctrines. Is this correct? I need a straight answer here before I can continue or reply to any of the above
Clove Roy In light of the BU paper, yes, I believe the indoctrination of Christianity is proven to be abusive to children, therefore warranting justified protection by a children's aid type service.
Christian OK I'm going to try to reach you one more time before I officially give up. Dude, you, I and everyone we went to school with in Catholic School were put in that school because our parents believed in Christ and God. Are you telling me that social services should have taken us all away from our parents?
Clove Roy Well if this is my last chance to challenge you on this topic then I better make it count. :)
You're assuming that all the parents who sent their kids to that school were believers. That's false. I went to that school because my family went to that school for a few generations, and our family name was on file. My parents are only Catholic because it was imposed on them from birth (baptism), and they were able to get me into school quickly from legacy records. The school years I spent in Montreal during my childhood, were more secular. My dad was not a believer then or now. My attendance to sacre-coeur was strictly out of convenience. Not every parent sent their children to that school with the same broad motive you outlined despite your incredulity.
I'm guessing by your last comment that all religious indoctrination (esp. Christianity) should be unchallenged, even when the safety of children is in question, and even when there is evidence that supports stunted growth in a child's ability to discern fact from fiction. Your dogma seems to grant special privileges to believers when it comes to religious indoctrination (esp. Christianity). I would vote 10 times out of 10 to protect, and intervene in any child's welfare, especially from parents who choose to stay ignorant in the face of new evidence that would benefit their own children's mental health and well being.
The fact that religion is taught practically from birth, tells me that it is insecure in it's own understanding. If the conviction is so strong in their beliefs, then their would really be no reason to start the indoctrination so early. Asides from introducing a group bias.
I like to think that early religious indoctrination is well intended. But there are a lot of things that were initially well intended but proved to be hazardous, and when a child is in a hazardous situation, then they need be protected. Indoctrination of religion (even Christianity) is not exempt.
Christian Wow, just wow. So despite you not actually answering the question and resorting to a special pleading fallacy in referring to your own parents, it looks like your answer is that yes, Christian (and presumably all non-atheist) parents should have their kids taken away from them for their “safety”.
This is pretty horrifying. This is NOT the guy I knew, this sounds like a guy who literally would have fit in in Nazi Germany when they rounded up the Jews. No, I’m not trying to exaggerate or appeal to emotion, yours was the attitude people had.
This being the case, I have no interest in pursuing this discussion since I don’t want anything to do with a person who thinks this way. Does your family know you believe Christian children should be taken from their parents? Have you explained that to your son? You ought to really give this one some thought, because what you’re saying would destroy countless families, and I’m holding out hope that you don’t actually believe this and are just temporarily insane!
However, before I sign off, I need you to understand how foolish your actual arguments are, in hopes that if you see how your arguments contain flaws and fallacies, you will reconsider your position here.
1. The BSU study upon which you base this argument has SEVERAL problems with it
a) - Clove, this is ONE study. I could find you a study which supports practically anything. A 2009 Pew Forum study, for instance, showed that seculars believed in reincarnation, yoga as a spiritual practice, spiritual energy in physical objects, and astrology in rates that were the same or higher than for the general population. (White evangelical protestants who attend religious services weekly were the least likely, by far, to believe in those things.) Does this mean that we should mean that we should take these secular kids from their parents? Of course not, because it is RIDICULOUS, because it would be MUCH more harmful to take children away from their parents!, since any number of studies show that kids who are not raised by their parents are more prone to violence and other anti-social behaviour. Does this really need to be said?!?
b) - (1) Sample size: Do you realize that only 6 Christians were represented? A reliable research group would have a more balanced representation.
c) - (1) Deceptive questions: Many of the questions asked by researchers were designed to “trick” Christian kids, by disguising biblical accounts as “fantastical” as here’s an example:
Here are the three stories used for Moses:
Religious: This is Moses. Moses was leading his people from their enemies, when they reached the sea. Moses asked God for help, and waved his staff. The sea parted into two, and Moses and his people escaped through the dry land in the middle.
Fantastical: This is Moses. Moses was leading his people from their enemies, when they reached the sea. Moses had a magic staff and he used it. He waved his staff and the sea parted into two, and Moses and his people escaped through the dry land in the middle.
Realistic: This is Moses. Moses was leading his people from their enemies, when they reached the sea. Moses asked a fisherman for help, and borrowed his boat. He waved his staff goodbye. Moses and his people sailed on the boat to the other side of the sea and they escaped.
Now OBVIOUSLY most Christians kids would believe the “fantastical” story because it simply changed Moses’ “staff” to “magic staff”. One cannot deny that most Christians kids would believe the “fantastical” example since it so closely resembles the “religious” example, and this is NOT the only occasion this was done. This is VERY deceptive as the questions are presented to specifically deceive Christian kids.
- False thesis: This thesis of this study is very misleading. What would have been more accurate would be to see how many students believe in God, not the “fantastical”, as this obviously begs the question “Is God fantasy?” Just because YOU, and presumably these researchers may think so, this is not a provable fact.
In any case, I hope you get the point here. This is just one flawed study, but to use ANY one study to support what you claim to support because wherever you found it presumably had a sensational headline is just lazy.
(NOTE You might want to read these articles for more information about how deceptive this study is
(1) Did Study Really Show That Christian Kids Are More Gullible?
Judgments About Fact And Fiction By Confused Researchers)
I’d also like to point out some fatal fallacies in your argument:
1. I’ve already mentioned that using your own family is certainly “special pleading”, since you have to admit that at least the majority of the parents chose Sacre-Coeur because it was a Catholic school which teaches Christian doctrine. It’s not easy to switch from private to public (I did this in grade 8, and my brother was forced to as well), so in most cases there is a reason other than “convenience” for sending their kids to one. The fact that you use yourself who was in the minority is simply an obvious attempt to avoid answering my question.
2. You present an absurd “false dichotomy” when you claim that we protect children (“appeal to emotion” fallacy) by “protecting” them from “religious indoctrination” (Do you realize you used that term 5 times in your last post? Just so you know repeating an insinuation or opinion DOESN'T make it true!). According to you, it’s either “protect the children” or “teach children to believe in God”! You say “I would vote 10 times out of 10 to protect, and intervene in any child's welfare, especially from parents who choose to stay ignorant in the face of new evidence that would benefit their own children's mental health and well being.” Protect them from what exactly? Ignorant of what? How would you intervene? What is this “new evidence” which disproves God exactly? You are committing the same “begging the question” fallacy by claiming that this “evidence” disproves God!
3. You also commit the “straw man” fallacy by stating that I believe that “all religious indoctrination (esp. Christianity) should be unchallenged, even when the safety of children is in question”. First, I never said that “all religious indoctrination should be unchallenged”, my argument was that Christian families shouldn’t have their children taken away for sharing their faith! This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support action in a dangerous or abusive scenario like the Muslims or even specific Christian denominations.
4. Then you say “The fact that religion is taught practically from birth, tells me that it is insecure in it's own understanding. ” Here you commit a “non-sequitur” fallacy, as there is no reason to believe that Christianity is only believed if it is taught from a young age. As for the “group bias”, this applies to MANY things outside of religion. I could say “you only believe in math because they taught it to you in school.” Would this also be a “group bias”? I imagine you might say “Oh well math is TRUE and God isn’t” because YOU don’t believe in God, but that just doesn't hold up in an argument…
It’s amazing how you are able to stand on the shoulders of a Christian-built western world and forget that Christians brought universities, hospitals, public charity, major scientific development, emancipation, etc, etc and claim that this “indoctrination” needs to be, in your own word, “eradicated”. You have chosen a worldview which doesn’t tolerate any beliefs which do match yours, which is THE definition of a bigot. As I said, that's not the guy I knew or want to know, and I will continue to pray that God will lift this dark veil from your eyes. God bless you and your family, and let me know if you change your mind. Until then, (I hope)
Clove Roy So to be clear… from your perspective, I dodged your question, then you decided to answer it for me, then you proceed to spend time breaking down how wrong the answer you provided me with is... Furthermore, distorting my response by presuming that I think Atheists should be exempt from what I mentioned beforehand. That is also false, and I have never been this insulted by such a blatant misrepresentation of my worldview. Sadly, I can trust that this pattern will only continue.
Clove Roy I am most definitely a new person, as you admittedly are as well. My worldview places a high value on evidence, logic, and the wellbeing of myself and others. Seeing how kind it was of you to align my worldview with the Jewish holocaust, while further letting me know how immoral you find the answers that you so kindly provided on my behalf, only demonstrates apathy. I can see now that any interest on your part in trying to understanding where I'm coming from is futile. Also, I have heard other Christians proclaim Atheists as Nazi, but I'm disappointed that by sheer ignorance, you've decided to set the tone that will be the catalyst to ending both this discussion, and our friendship. Reading Mein Kampf (free .pdf’s online) would give you a way more accurate understanding of Hitler’s motives and unapologetic ‘godly’/Christian duty to eliminate the Semitic population. But then again, if you can deny scientific facts, I can see how easy it would be for you to deny historical facts. This is disappointing, because I honestly thought you were smarter, more learned, and more articulate than that.
Clove Roy Ah... I finally see how this is supposed to work… set the trap with Christian propaganda, lure someone into engagement, then denigrate the person you're corresponding with by stating a lapse in their mental stability. Then spring back with a hollow sympathy plea. I can only guess that this tactic is to help you disengage while feeling you did your best.
Clove Roy I do not simply believe that Christian children should be taken from their parents. I believe religious indoctrination is proven to be abusive, and children shouldn't be exposed to it until they are in the least consenting adults. My son is very well aware of my worldview, because I don’t lie to him. But thanks for bringing up the kids though… Classy.
Clove Roy I was, until now, interested in understanding your worldview. More specifically, how you personally came to terms with areas I find illogical. I can see clearly now that you fit quite nicely into the mold of a typical evidence denying/rejecting Christian. I'll look elsewhere to engage on this topic, because discussing this with you, seems to require a higher than average constitution to abusive remarks, defamation, and obtuseness.
Clove Roy I can see how it would be easier (and profitable at times) to claim that there isn’t any evidence ‘for this’, or ‘for that’, reject logic, and come up with crafty Christian ways to try and shift the burden of proof when things get dicey. Some really smart, and untrustworthy people (like Kent Hovind), have made shit tons of cash by manipulating people under their influence, but you already knew this.
Clove Roy Your claim of flaws in the BU study has been severely compromised by your biased and newly adopted Christian values. Seeing that these ‘secular parents (as you've described them)’ would in fact be lying to their kids about what is ‘fact’ and what is ‘fiction’, my point of making it arduous for children to understand and predict the natural world around them stands. I big part of my worldview is interested in protecting children who are being abused by dogma. I’ll be reading - Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment - by Janet Heimlich as soon as the Amazon delivery gets here. I’d invite you to join me in reviewing the book together, but I suspect you lack interest in pursuing both this discussion, and any reading material that might present unpleasant critiques towards Christianity.
Clove Roy Every parent (Atheist or not) is indebted to provide their children with health, happiness, honesty, and safety from misery and harm. I still find it weird that you would be ok lying to children about myths and fantasies that you, and your sect of Christianity have chosen to subscribe to in your adults years. Knowing that you have difficulty imagining a domestically abusive scenario, where children are actually safer being away from their parents, is troublesome to say the least. I think you would agree that parents should be held accountable for deliberately misguiding their kids. This includes misguiding your children to believe myths as facts. Some parents should never have any interaction with children (even their own), because pedophiles, sadists, and narcotic abusers can have babies, and be Christian as well. But I guess anyone subscribed to your specific brand of Christianity would never do that in the first place... oy-vay… I find it odd that when a Christian is exposed for bad behavior, his once loving Christian circle will deny he was ever a real Christian to begin with, as though hindsight can somehow protect them (or their children), from the dormant ‘Wolves in sheep's clothing’ waiting to prey on the faithful and ignorant. It would seem by this logic that a real Christian is only one who is yet to be caught.
Clove Roy I figured your brand of dogma wouldn’t think it’s a big deal that 6 children are having trouble separating fact from fiction. I guess it doesn’t really matter though does it, since lying to inquisitive children is perfectly acceptable when it’s all about the Christian God of Abraham. I guess you wouldn’t have any issues with parents indoctrinating their children to believe Thor or Neptune was just as real as your God, since no one has been able to disprove them either. Tough break for those kids, I guess.
Clove Roy “Many of the questions asked by researchers were designed to “trick” Christian kids...” and these researchers were, by your own admission, way more successful in tricking the religious kids. That’s the actual problem that your dogma wants to reject. Don't you see; “...OBVIOUSLY most Christian kids would believe the “fantastical” story…” this is the root of the problem… these kids have difficulty differentiating fantastical stories from real ones, making them more gullible. “One cannot deny that most Christians kids would believe the “fantastical” example since it so closely resembles the “religious” example…” seeing as this is the whole point of the study, someone who is meaning to do harm to children (including some Christian parents), could more easily prey on this gullibility, and trick them with less difficulty than a child who was demonstrably less gullible. Less gullible children are better protected from predators, and better equipped for the real adult world they will be facing soon. Seeing as I’ve quoted you three times admitting that religious kids are more gullible, rejecting this evidence any further, only means that you actually support the intentional misguiding of children.
Clove Roy I find it confusing that you claim ‘special pleading’ on my part after directly implicating me in your claim… smdh. Since I am in a privileged position to confirm that claim, I called bullshit. Which was in fact enough for you to move your goal posts (once again…le sigh) from ‘all parents’ to ‘most parents’ therefore, my logic was sound, and yet another example of your misunderstanding and misapplication of logic fallacies. Claiming that I have to admit now that ‘most parents’ sent their kids to this school because of their faith, is actually what’s committing a ‘Special Plea’ fallacy. I also find it amusing that you previously seemed opposed to applying logic fallacies to our discussion, but yet, I can see you trying your best. Since you so easily moved the goalposts from ‘All’ to ‘Most’, I can only guess that these two words mean the same thing coming from your brand of Christianity.
Clove Roy As a Christian apologist, you need to understand when a break in logic occurs. Your ongoing ‘misses’ will only inspire mockery from individuals who value reason and logic. You keep hanging your hook on God needing to be ‘disproven’ before you'll even entertain his absence… well I guess you’ll believe anything until ‘disproven’ then. Meaning you give equal validity to other things that cannot be ‘disproven’, as in; fire breathing dragons, elves, or Santa Claus. Neither I, nor anyone else can ‘disprove’ the existence of any deity; we both agree on this, but by this logic, Thor & unicorns must be just as real then. Can anyone disprove the existence of Zeus?... nope, I guess he is just as valid as your personal god. Bertrand Russell closed the door on this fallacy over a century ago, and hanging your arguments on this illogical hook, only serves to expose more ignorance. Yet, this is the realm you prefer yourself and others (including children) to live in, while arrogantly claiming to be right over all other religions, and scientific facts.
Clove Roy Man, you’re really having a hard time with logic fallacies… the only false dilemma presented, is how you poorly tried to summarize my statement to make your point, and ultimately, confirm your bias. This also demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.
Clove Roy ‘Sharing’ your faith is different than ‘indoctrination’, but then again you clearly think these two words mean the same thing. So tell you what… if you think ‘sharing’ and ‘indoctrination’ are two separate things, then I would agree that I committed a fallacy with my statement, apologize for an inaccurate summation, then course correct my statement to be a more accurate reflection of your worldview. Because my comment does assumes these two words are interchangeable within your worldview, merely to make your point stick.
Clove Roy Math is not a belief structure that requires faith or group bias, but believing in the God of Abraham does. Putting these two into an analogy to demonstrate ‘group bias’, says you either don't understand how math is applied to the natural world, or that you think God is just as predictable as math. This is a failure in critical thinking. Also, there is plenty of reason to believe most people follow a religion because they are born into it. Most of the time, Kids born of Muslim parents and countries, are usually Muslim. And kids born of Catholic parents and countries are usually Catholic. There is a reason for this, and it's usually early childhood indoctrination.
Clove Roy Christians also brought disease and Genocide but who cares about that, or the suffering of the indigenous population at the hands of Christians… wait, I got this one; those people weren’t ‘real’ Christians, so no accountability… good grief….
Clove Roy I can only guess that your increased use of ad-hominems, are meant to avoid genuine engagement… probably your enlightened Christ like compassion, or maybe you've realized that you’re out of your league, and running out of moves bruises your ego just enough to predictably slither away like a good and faithful Christian.
Clove Roy We’ve known each other since grade school and I’ve been privy to more than a few of your schemes and deceitfulness over the years, yet you’ve managed to hit an all-time low. I guess when you subscribed to verses like Matthew 10 34:38, sacrificing long term friendships to prove faithfulness is eventually the duty of every Christian, interestingly enough this usually seems to happen when they no longer have the fortitude or intellect to engage with their non-believer friends once held accountable to logic. I see your end goal though… surround yourself only with people who are less able to call bullshit. Your loss is my gain however, because your recent interactions tell me you’re ‘All-In’ for the ‘Long-Con’.
Clove Roy Despairingly, you have aligned yourself with a worldview that celebrates lying and self-delusions as virtues which are entirely predicated on self-interested desires to escape damnation. The lifeblood of Christianity (and all religions) is to pretend you know things that you can’t prove. My worldview plainly steers away from the destructive consequences of lying. As for your condescending lip service of praying to your imaginary friend on my behalf, please save it for someone who is willing to share in your delusion.
Clove Roy Finally, since you've got too much sand caught in your religious vagina to actually absorb what I’ve been describing as my worldview, I as well have no interest in continuing this dialogue, or friendship, and bid you adieu.
Christian Well I guess agreed on one thing, and that continuing this conversation is a waste of time for both of us. I was going to invest another couple of hours replying to this stuff but really, what's the point? You'd rather read books about how awful Christianity is and call it every name in the book BEFORE EVEN HAVING READ THE BIBLE! This is the height of ignorance and as I said last time, it has contributed to your bigoted worldview. It's a shame since I guess I've failed you, but I just won't put up with these attacks on me and my religion any longer, so I'll leave you with a passage from Romans 1 which I hope you bother to read and think about: "(1:20) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
(1:21) For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
(1:22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools."
God bless you and the family