aa#44. DO ANY ATHEISTS HERE BELIEVE THAT RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION IS A FORM OF CHILD ABUSE?

[hypatiab7]

Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa thread
is telling the entire world that they are a troll.

aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child abuse?

[Olrik]

Yes.

The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
possible abuse children get at home.


--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <dd861243-ab01-4f3f...@googlegroups.com>,

Obviously, I do. Since I'm always saying so.

--

JD

Being open-minded is merely the willingness to consider
evidence, not the willingness to accept claims without any.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

It is a shameful crime to me...

[Les Hellawell]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:00:22 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <dd861243-ab01-4f3f...@googlegroups.com>,
> hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
>> be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa
>> thread
>> is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
>>
>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child
>> abuse?
>
>
>Obviously, I do. Since I'm always saying so.

It is not just abuse but a betrayal of the absolute trust and love
that children have in their parents on whom they completely
depend

--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from YORKSHIRE
The White Rose County

"Faith must trample under foot all reason,
sense, and understanding".

Martin Luther

This means that if Luther practised what
he preached nothing he ever said makes any sense

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:04:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Le 2015-07-18 22:57, hypatiab7 a écrit :
>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
>> be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa thread
>> is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
>>
>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child abuse?
>
>Yes.
>
>The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
>possible abuse children get at home.

In the U.S. the religious nutters get around that by winning seats on
the local Board of Education, generally by concealing their religious
bias while running. Then they get to abuse _all_ the kids in the
district.

To fervent believers, mind fucks are as satisfying as butt fucks are
to the less fervent clergy.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[John Locke]

..yes, absolutely. It is a most egregious from of child abuse and
should be treated just as such. Laws need to be passed making it a
crime to mind fuck children wherin no one under the age of 18 could be
subjected to religious indoctrination.

[bil...@m.nu]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:57:39 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7
<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:

Yes, I do. I do believe it also eventually leads to physical damage to
the brain

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 9:57:41 PM UTC-5, hypatiab7 wrote:

> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination
> is child abuse?

+1

[Olrik]

Le 2015-07-19 09:04, Don Martin a écrit :
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:04:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Le 2015-07-18 22:57, hypatiab7 a écrit :
>>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
>>> be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa thread
>>> is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
>>>
>>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child abuse?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
>> possible abuse children get at home.
>
> In the U.S. the religious nutters get around that by winning seats on
> the local Board of Education, generally by concealing their religious
> bias while running. Then they get to abuse _all_ the kids in the
> district.

Is there any way that can be stopped?

> To fervent believers, mind fucks are as satisfying as butt fucks are
> to the less fervent clergy.

Indeed.

Here in Québec the religious nuts can't do anything bad to public
schools, but they can have private religious schools. Although they are
required to teach the same curricula as the public school system,
they're sometimes abusing their status and mostly teach their crap
instead. At least it's a very marginal problem.

[hypatiab7]

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 2:00:24 AM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <dd861243-ab01-4f3f...@googlegroups.com>,
> hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
> > be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa
> > thread
> > is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
> >
> > aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child
> > abuse?
>
>
> Obviously, I do. Since I'm always saying so.
>

Remember these questions were first asked (as the Atheist Questions)
about 15 years ago. Already by that time the religious nutters realized
that their numbers were starting to go down. That's when they started
going crackers politically and we started overloading with trolls. The
reason why there are so many of them in the newsgroup, on schoolboards
and in politics is that they know they are on the way out. This is their
last desperate hoorah. That's why we can't let them have their lying,
sneaky way.

One thing the religious fanatics haven't figured out yet is that the more tightly they hang onto their kids, the more kids they're going to lose.
But, the ones not strong enough to get away will be mentally damaged -
like our trolls.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:35:48 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Le 2015-07-19 09:04, Don Martin a écrit :
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:04:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2015-07-18 22:57, hypatiab7 a écrit :
>>>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
>>>> be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa thread
>>>> is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
>>>>
>>>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child abuse?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
>>> possible abuse children get at home.
>>
>> In the U.S. the religious nutters get around that by winning seats on
>> the local Board of Education, generally by concealing their religious
>> bias while running. Then they get to abuse _all_ the kids in the
>> district.
>
>Is there any way that can be stopped?

That would take a national curriculum, or something amounting to it.

Which I can't see happening because the paranoid religious rednecks
who cause the problem, don't like it.

It's pathetic that unelected morons get to decide whether or not
everybody's children get taught what is basic but important education
in other countries.

In the UK, the exams children take before "graduating" from high
school are set by the major universities. In theory, the schools get
to determine their own curriculum, but in practice they have to
prepare the kids for these.

So it means that Oxford, Cambridge, London, Manchester, etc
universities determine the high school curriculua.

The American equivalent would be Yale, Harvard or Stamford setting the
high school curricula.

And the advanced level classes are higher than anything in American
high schools, so British degree courses are shorter than American
ones.

>> To fervent believers, mind fucks are as satisfying as butt fucks are
>> to the less fervent clergy.

The fervent believers are so brainwashed they imagine reality is the
mind-fuck.

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:35:48 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Le 2015-07-19 09:04, Don Martin a écrit :
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:04:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2015-07-18 22:57, hypatiab7 a écrit :
>>>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
>>>> be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa thread
>>>> is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
>>>>
>>>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child abuse?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
>>> possible abuse children get at home.
>>
>> In the U.S. the religious nutters get around that by winning seats on
>> the local Board of Education, generally by concealing their religious
>> bias while running. Then they get to abuse _all_ the kids in the
>> district.
>
>Is there any way that can be stopped?

Voter education, perhaps.

>> To fervent believers, mind fucks are as satisfying as butt fucks are
>> to the less fervent clergy.
>
>Indeed.
>
>Here in Québec the religious nuts can't do anything bad to public
>schools, but they can have private religious schools. Although they are
>required to teach the same curricula as the public school system,
>they're sometimes abusing their status and mostly teach their crap
>instead. At least it's a very marginal problem.

Religious schools: where the child abuse begun at home is securely
continued in an institutional setting.

[Olrik]

Yup... And they sometimes fail!

;-)

[Alex W.]

Tricky.

My first reaction is an emphatic yes.

But then I start to think about this...

For a start, what sort of religion are we talking here?
There are worlds of difference between different religions,
and the various denominations within a religion. Hasidic
Ultra-orthodox Judaism is not really comparable to Liberal
Judaism. Branch Davidians cannot be compared to the Church
of England. In terms of child abuse, it's the difference
between occaisonal slaps and taking the buckle end of the
belt to the brat every day.

At its mildest and most benign, a religious indoctrination
that teaches a child respect and consideration for his
fellow Man would be pretty unobjectionable, it would seem to
me.

The other issue is how to separate religion from culture.
In our modern and secular societies, that is not so
problematic, but in many parts of the world religion and its
practics are still inextricably interwoven with living
culture. To actively avoid religious indoctrination would
then also disconnect the child from its culture and social
environment, and that would in itself also be harmful. In
cultures where family and community are more important than
the individual (which is most of the world), to cut religion
out of a child's life is to not socialise it, to deprive it
of connections and knowledge important for a successful
membership in that society. Bring up an Amish kid without
its particular brand of kooky Christianity -- it is still
Amish? Could it ever be a happy and full member of its
culture?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <k3hxrvyk21v0$.15mb5ke28mmtb$.d...@40tude.net>,

If you are teaching them that things that just aren't real are real,
then you are handicapping your child's possibility of success later in
lifre.

Of course, I'm talking mostly about fundamentalist types. For sane
theists, I'd have to know more.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Apart from the dishonesty in teaching the child falsehoods.

It leads to the nastily stupid claims that religion is needed to
behave decently towards one's fellow man.

>> The other issue is how to separate religion from culture.

Bullshit.

In Britain, religion is largely cultural with comparatively few taking
it seriously.

>> In our modern and secular societies, that is not so
>> problematic, but in many parts of the world religion and its
>> practics are still inextricably interwoven with living
>> culture. To actively avoid religious indoctrination would
>> then also disconnect the child from its culture and social
>> environment, and that would in itself also be harmful. In

More bullshit.

They can still be taught that people believe it even if they don't
themselves, and that it's people's own business what they believe.

>> cultures where family and community are more important than
>> the individual (which is most of the world), to cut religion
>> out of a child's life is to not socialise it, to deprive it
>> of connections and knowledge important for a successful

Even more bullshit.

They can be taught to live within that environment without believing
it.

>> membership in that society. Bring up an Amish kid without
>> its particular brand of kooky Christianity -- it is still
>> Amish? Could it ever be a happy and full member of its
>> culture?

He knows better, because Britain is mostly culturally Christian rather
than religiously Christian.

There's nothing wrong with teaching the cultural and historical side.

But teaching it as fact, provides fodder for the fundamentalists and
literalists because it doesn't teach them to think critically about
it.

>If you are teaching them that things that just aren't real are real,
>then you are handicapping your child's possibility of success later in
>lifre.

Exactly.

>Of course, I'm talking mostly about fundamentalist types. For sane
>theists, I'd have to know more.

Pretty much the same.

He often tries to find excuses for Christianity, and in the past has
described himself as "Christian manqué".

From dictionary.com...

manqué
[mahng-key; French mahn-key]
adjective
1.
having failed, missed, or fallen short, especially because of
circumstances or a defect of character; unsuccessful; unfulfilled
or frustrated (usually used postpositively):

a poet manqué who never produced a single book of verse.

[Don Martin]

It's nice to know that they have _one_ saving grace.

[Smiler]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:24:34 -0400, Don Martin wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:35:48 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Le 2015-07-19 09:04, Don Martin a écrit :
>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:04:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Le 2015-07-18 22:57, hypatiab7 a écrit :
>>>>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist
>>>>> FAQs, is to be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who
>>>>> responds to an aa thread is telling the entire world that they are a
>>>>> troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is
>>>>> child abuse?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
>>>> possible abuse children get at home.
>>>
>>> In the U.S. the religious nutters get around that by winning seats on
>>> the local Board of Education, generally by concealing their religious
>>> bias while running. Then they get to abuse _all_ the kids in the
>>> district.
>>
>>Is there any way that can be stopped?
>
> Voter education, perhaps.

Some (many?) are uneducable. I'd prefer an IQ test for those who wish to
vote.
IQ under 90...Sorry, you can't vote.

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[John Locke]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 00:35:31 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king>
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:24:34 -0400, Don Martin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:35:48 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Le 2015-07-19 09:04, Don Martin a écrit :
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:04:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 2015-07-18 22:57, hypatiab7 a écrit :
>>>>>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist
>>>>>> FAQs, is to be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who
>>>>>> responds to an aa thread is telling the entire world that they are a
>>>>>> troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is
>>>>>> child abuse?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
>>>>> possible abuse children get at home.
>>>>
>>>> In the U.S. the religious nutters get around that by winning seats on
>>>> the local Board of Education, generally by concealing their religious
>>>> bias while running. Then they get to abuse _all_ the kids in the
>>>> district.
>>>
>>>Is there any way that can be stopped?
>>
>> Voter education, perhaps.
>
>Some (many?) are uneducable. I'd prefer an IQ test for those who wish to
>vote.
>IQ under 90...Sorry, you can't vote.
>

...I would like to extend that testing to the purchase of firearms.

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 5:03:02 AM UTC-5, Alex W. wrote:

> Tricky.
>
> My first reaction is an emphatic yes.
>
> But then I start to think about this...

First of all: i respect your courage to speak honestly. But
your attempt to rationalize religion by ignoring the truth,
and appealing to emotion, is dangerous.

It seems as though you "may" be in a phase between theism
and atheism. That is okay. For some of us, myself included,
the process was not instantaneous. I too tried to make
excuses for the hypocrisies of religion. But then i realized
the *TRUE* insidious nature of *ALL* religion. From then on,
i became enlightened. And i became free. And i will never
make excuses or feel one ounce of pity for this brain
washing evil again!

I don't have the energy tonight to explain how i found the
inner strength to finally overcome religion, and proclaim to
the world that I'm 100% atheist. But i did get inspired
once, and wrote about it in my blog.

http://arantadaykeepsthemonstersaway.blogspot.com/2015/01/warning-religion-can-scar-you-for-life.html

PS: I'm not attempting to "lure" you into atheism. Only
*YOU* can decide if you're an atheist or not. But i don't
believe you can admire *ANY* religion and be 100% atheist.
Theism is mental slavery. And there is no such thing as
"excusable slavery" in my opinion. Not in *ANY* form.

[Wexford Eire]

It's not just religious indoctrination that's the problem. As one of the people who posted here said there's a lot of variation in religious belief from structures as controlling as break-away Mormon sects and ultra orthodox Jews to religions as loose as Quakers or the Osteen-type feel-good evangelicals, Unitarians, others.

Indoctrination goes well beyond religion, however. All children's literature is infested with garbage about magic, dragons, witches, sorcerers, warlocks, monsters, ghosts and other nonsense. I grew up watching old movies on TV and the ones that impressed me the most were films like "Pasteur" (the story of Louis Pasteur), Doctor Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (story of Max Ehrlich whose research enabled the quick determination of tuberculosis and who came up with the first real cure for syphilis.), The Story of Marie Curie, there was one on Dr. Koch as well, but I've forgotten its title and another on the work of work of Walter Reed and the Doctors who discovered the vector for Yellow Fever.

Nothing like that is done today. It's Harry Potter and the Turd of Fire or some crapola that simply trivializes life and gives kids the impression that incantations and magic are real, viable alternatives to science. I've got my grandchildren, who don't go to church, reading the kid's edition of National Geographic, which they love. I wish Scientific American would also put out a kid's edition.

The Disney people are culpable in all this as well. In their universe, giant, talking rodents are fine, but professors are all nutty, and scientists are all loons.

In any event, teaching children that magic can work, and that one doesn't have to undergo years of hard work to begin to understand modern existence and technology, that all you need is a magic wand, is, I think, just as destructive to their minds as religion.

[Olrik]

You should have stopped at :

<My first reaction is an emphatic yes.>

[Olrik]

Le 2015-07-21 20:35, Smiler a écrit :
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:24:34 -0400, Don Martin wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:35:48 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Le 2015-07-19 09:04, Don Martin a écrit :
>>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 00:04:20 -0400, Olrik <olri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Le 2015-07-18 22:57, hypatiab7 a écrit :
>>>>>> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist
>>>>>> FAQs, is to be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who
>>>>>> responds to an aa thread is telling the entire world that they are a
>>>>>> troll.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is
>>>>>> child abuse?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
>>>>> possible abuse children get at home.
>>>>
>>>> In the U.S. the religious nutters get around that by winning seats on
>>>> the local Board of Education, generally by concealing their religious
>>>> bias while running. Then they get to abuse _all_ the kids in the
>>>> district.
>>>
>>> Is there any way that can be stopped?
>>
>> Voter education, perhaps.
>
> Some (many?) are uneducable. I'd prefer an IQ test for those who wish to
> vote.
> IQ under 90...Sorry, you can't vote.

I'd be against that. "IQ" measurement is really too messy and doesn't
the true value of a person.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <a6457a52-882f-4e4d...@googlegroups.com>,

Wexford Eire <wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 10:57:41 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
> > be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa
> > thread
> > is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
> >
> > aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child
> > abuse?
>
> It's not just religious indoctrination that's the problem. As one of the
> people who posted here said there's a lot of variation in religious belief
> from structures as controlling as break-away Mormon sects and ultra orthodox
> Jews to religions as loose as Quakers or the Osteen-type feel-good
> evangelicals, Unitarians, others.
>
> Indoctrination goes well beyond religion, however. All children's literature
> is infested with garbage about magic, dragons, witches, sorcerers, warlocks,
> monsters, ghosts and other nonsense.

It's fiction. It doesn't have to be real. As long as the children aren't
told that it's real, it's exactly the kind of thing that helps kids work
through figuring out life.

> I grew up watching old movies on TV and
> the ones that impressed me the most were films like "Pasteur" (the story of
> Louis Pasteur), Doctor Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (story of Max Ehrlich whose
> research enabled the quick determination of tuberculosis and who came up with
> the first real cure for syphilis.), The Story of Marie Curie, there was one
> on Dr. Koch as well, but I've forgotten its title and another on the work of
> work of Walter Reed and the Doctors who discovered the vector for Yellow
> Fever.
>
> Nothing like that is done today. It's Harry Potter and the Turd of Fire or
> some crapola that simply trivializes life and gives kids the impression that
> incantations and magic are real, viable alternatives to science.

How the hell does Harry Potter do anything like that?

> I've got my
> grandchildren, who don't go to church, reading the kid's edition of National
> Geographic, which they love. I wish Scientific American would also put out a
> kid's edition.
>
> The Disney people are culpable in all this as well. In their universe, giant,
> talking rodents are fine, but professors are all nutty, and scientists are
> all loons.
>
> In any event, teaching children that magic can work, and that one doesn't
> have to undergo years of hard work to begin to understand modern existence
> and technology, that all you need is a magic wand, is, I think, just as
> destructive to their minds as religion.

The ONLY people teaching children that magic can work are religions.
Fiction is called fiction for a reason; it's not real. Nobody is telling
children that there's any such thing as a magic wand in the real world.

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 10:25:10 PM UTC-5, Wexford Eire wrote:
> The Disney people are culpable in all this as well. In
> their universe, giant, talking rodents are fine, but
> professors are all nutty, and scientists are all loons.

Obvious anti-science propaganda. With the exception of a few
animated classics, Disney sucks donkey balls! Most of their
animated movies offer atrocious graphics and terrible story
lines anyway. Pixar and Dreamworks are setting the standards
nowadays.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <23b70413-9104-415f...@googlegroups.com>,

Pixar IS Disney. Since 2006.

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 12:06:41 AM UTC-5, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> Pixar IS Disney. Since 2006.

And Disney has made a deal with Dreamworks also. But buying
out a successful competitor does not mean Disney has any
"talent". On the contrary, Disney has grown antiquated and
lost it's ability to compete with 21st century animation
houses.

The only thing keeping Disney alive is money. Pixar and
Dreamworks have the talent, and Disney is merely trying to
take credit for other people's talent. Either one of those
companies could have survived without Disney. Now, they'll
melt into a corporation and become bland and tasteless
under the heavy handed control of the bean-counters.

It's no different in Radio. Giant corporations have destroyed
radio in the US, and expanded their influence worldwide.
Stations that once maintained strict adherence to specific
genres and offered quality music have now been transformed
(by the corporate suits) into looping cycles the same dozen
or so mindless pop songs -> day in and day out!

When money becomes the only goal, the ultimate fetish, the
end result is (at best) mediocrity. Talented musicians and
graphics designers are not concerned with excessive profits,
they obtain satisfaction simply from creating their product.

And greedy corporations suck the life out of them.

[talishi]

On 07/18/2015 09:04 PM, Olrik wrote:
> The idea of secular public school is the only way to balance the
> possible abuse children get at home.

Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!

[Wexford Eire]

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:51:49 PM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <a6457a52-882f-4e4d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Wexford Eire <wexford....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 10:57:41 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote:
> > > Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
> > > be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa
> > > thread
> > > is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
> > >
> > > aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child
> > > abuse?
> >
> > It's not just religious indoctrination that's the problem. As one of the
> > people who posted here said there's a lot of variation in religious belief
> > from structures as controlling as break-away Mormon sects and ultra orthodox
> > Jews to religions as loose as Quakers or the Osteen-type feel-good
> > evangelicals, Unitarians, others.
> >
> > Indoctrination goes well beyond religion, however. All children's literature
> > is infested with garbage about magic, dragons, witches, sorcerers, warlocks,
> > monsters, ghosts and other nonsense.
>
> It's fiction. It doesn't have to be real. As long as the children aren't
> told that it's real, it's exactly the kind of thing that helps kids work
> through figuring out life.
>

But when there's a steady flow of stories about magic, werewolves, vampires, and other nonsense without a single thing produced that introduces children to the wonders of science, of nature, of the magnificent accomplishments of engineering and the effort that went into all that, you raise them to be ignorant, silly, wishful, superficial and thoughtless. Dumas, Hugo, Twain, Hemingway, Zola, Tolstoy, Pearl Buck, Fitzgerald, and thousands of others wrote and write fiction that's steeped in reality. Why not expose children to stories about scientists or engineers or others who have done magnificent things to build the modern world.

> > I grew up watching old movies on TV and
> > the ones that impressed me the most were films like "Pasteur" (the story of
> > Louis Pasteur), Doctor Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (story of Max Ehrlich whose
> > research enabled the quick determination of tuberculosis and who came up with
> > the first real cure for syphilis.), The Story of Marie Curie, there was one
> > on Dr. Koch as well, but I've forgotten its title and another on the work of
> > work of Walter Reed and the Doctors who discovered the vector for Yellow
> > Fever.
> >
> > Nothing like that is done today. It's Harry Potter and the Turd of Fire or
> > some crapola that simply trivializes life and gives kids the impression that
> > incantations and magic are real, viable alternatives to science.
>
> How the hell does Harry Potter do anything like that?

The Potter stories are particularly insidious. First, they trivialize family and the adults in the family who are portrayed as stupid, incoherent and unloving. Second, they wrap the child in daydreams of spells, witches, magic wands and monsters. Third, they create the illusion that people who practice magic are somehow superior to people who don't. All of that is just religion without God, a particularly pernicious religion that teaches children reality isn't real, parents are irrelevant, and magic is superior to all else. I think you're saying that children can tell the difference, that they know the dream is phony. Yes and no. Repeat it enough times and it becomes real to them.

>
> > I've got my
> > grandchildren, who don't go to church, reading the kid's edition of National
> > Geographic, which they love. I wish Scientific American would also put out a
> > kid's edition.
> >
> > The Disney people are culpable in all this as well. In their universe, giant,
> > talking rodents are fine, but professors are all nutty, and scientists are
> > all loons.
> >
> > In any event, teaching children that magic can work, and that one doesn't
> > have to undergo years of hard work to begin to understand modern existence
> > and technology, that all you need is a magic wand, is, I think, just as
> > destructive to their minds as religion.
>
> The ONLY people teaching children that magic can work are religions.

Half the crud that's produced for children teaches them that magic of one sort or another is real. The Disney corporation was built on that.

> Fiction is called fiction for a reason; it's not real. Nobody is telling
> children that there's any such thing as a magic wand in the real world.

Fiction can be steeped in reality, though. The fiction we honor the most is exactly that.

My complaint certainly involves the stuff that's served to children, but it also involves the neglect given to science and engineering. Virtually every movie that contains a scientist or engineer portrays them as odd or loony or childish. I don't think that's the way children should be taught about the disciplines that have really made the world as it is.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 07:10:58 -0700, talishi <tal...@example.net>
wrote:

No child's left behind!

[Smiler]

No point in that.
Firearms are transferable between people, so an IQ 91 person could
purchase a gun and give it to an IQ 89 person.
Votes are not so easily transferred.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <635f411f-a39c-4ba2...@googlegroups.com>,

What the eff are you talking about? That doesn't describe any of the few
parents we see in Harry Potter. Even the Malfoys love their son in their
own twisted way. And there are no parents more loving and involved as
the Weasleys. Even the dead Potters are loving.

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-5, Wexford Eire wrote:

> But when there's a steady flow of stories about magic,
> werewolves, vampires, and other nonsense without a single
> thing produced that introduces children to the wonders of
> science, of nature, of the magnificent accomplishments of
> engineering and the effort that went into all that, you
> raise them to be ignorant, silly, wishful, superficial and
> thoughtless. Dumas, Hugo, Twain, Hemingway, Zola, Tolstoy,
> Pearl Buck, Fitzgerald, and thousands of others wrote and
> write fiction that's steeped in reality. Why not expose
> children to stories about scientists or engineers or
> others who have done magnificent things to build the
> modern world.

Yep. Kids only worship: Music Icons, Glitterati, and Sports
Figures. All of which are almost impossible to become, and
do nothing to enhance our society. Sure, they serve as great
distractions, but nothing else.

> The Potter stories are particularly insidious. First, they
> trivialize family and the adults in the family who are
> portrayed as stupid, incoherent and unloving. Second, they
> wrap the child in daydreams of spells, witches, magic
> wands and monsters. Third, they create the illusion that
> people who practice magic are somehow superior to people
> who don't. All of that is just religion without God

All true. But you forget to mention the sickening consumerism
that is force feed into the minds of children from the day
they open their eyes. The commercials, the action figures,
the movie paraphernalia, THE FUCKING "HAPPY MEALS"! All are
part of a huge industry designed to brainwash us from birth,
to become lifelong slaves to the consumer society. And they
have been highly successful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFdmAgA_Gfo

[Wexford Eire]

I only saw the first movie. Harry's guardians were "Muggles," slow-witted and too stupid to realize Harry's potential as a wizard. They were prodded into allowing him to go to that horrid and ridiculous school by a ongoing series of events. Hence, all adults at home are stupid, plodding and restrictive. Once Harry was free of them he could realize his fate.

Why the hell couldn't the story have been about a child who is curious about everything and learns from adults who have the kindness, patience and wisdom to teach him or her?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <44ca014a-65be-408b...@googlegroups.com>,

Harry's guardian were his aunt and uncle, who hate wizards and would do
anything to pretend that Harry isn't allowed to be a wizard. And that
"horrid and ridiculous school" is perfectly awesome where magic is
taught and nurtured as a science, which it is in the stories.

The ONLY adults that are what you claim are Harry's bigoted relatives.
You have no idea what you're talking about, obviously.

> Why the hell couldn't the story have been about a child who is curious about
> everything and learns from adults who have the kindness, patience and wisdom
> to teach him or her?

That's EXACTLY what the books are about. Completely and totally. With
the villain who must be defeated to save all that is good and loving in
the world. Using the science they'd learned to beat him. Plus love and
courage.


The Harry Potter books (and movies) are wonderful. They encourage
learning, they teach love and friendship, they teach respect for other
people, they teach that bigotry is awful (the bigotry against both
Muggles and Mudbloods). They teach that sometimes achieving something is
hard and painful. They teach self-reliance.

J.K. Rowling really created a magnificent world. I'm coming really close
to an uncontrollable desire to re-read the books.

[Alex W.]

OTOH, the significant adults in Harry#s life are then his teachers at
Hogwarts. And they are anything but slow-witted or ignorant.

[Alex W.]

On 23/07/2015 00:57, rantingri...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-5, Wexford Eire wrote:
>
>> But when there's a steady flow of stories about magic,
>> werewolves, vampires, and other nonsense without a single
>> thing produced that introduces children to the wonders of
>> science, of nature, of the magnificent accomplishments of
>> engineering and the effort that went into all that, you
>> raise them to be ignorant, silly, wishful, superficial and
>> thoughtless. Dumas, Hugo, Twain, Hemingway, Zola, Tolstoy,
>> Pearl Buck, Fitzgerald, and thousands of others wrote and
>> write fiction that's steeped in reality. Why not expose
>> children to stories about scientists or engineers or
>> others who have done magnificent things to build the
>> modern world.
>
> Yep. Kids only worship: Music Icons, Glitterati, and Sports
> Figures. All of which are almost impossible to become, and
> do nothing to enhance our society. Sure, they serve as great
> distractions, but nothing else.

That does rather depend on who they are and what they do with their
privileged position. Black emancipation, for instance, did depend on
role models pushing the boundaries, showing that it could be done, that
black Americans could be a success and make something of their lives.
Think Sammy Davis Jr or Jesse Owens.

>
>> The Potter stories are particularly insidious. First, they
>> trivialize family and the adults in the family who are
>> portrayed as stupid, incoherent and unloving. Second, they
>> wrap the child in daydreams of spells, witches, magic
>> wands and monsters. Third, they create the illusion that
>> people who practice magic are somehow superior to people
>> who don't. All of that is just religion without God
>
> All true. But you forget to mention the sickening consumerism
> that is force feed into the minds of children from the day
> they open their eyes. The commercials, the action figures,
> the movie paraphernalia, THE FUCKING "HAPPY MEALS"! All are
> part of a huge industry designed to brainwash us from birth,
> to become lifelong slaves to the consumer society. And they
> have been highly successful.
>

Which is true.

But it's also a necessity that this should happen. Without this
relentless consumerism, our whole system would collapse in short order.
If people were to buy only what is needed, where consumers would deny
themselves the excessive and conspicuous consumption that is the
hallmark of our economic system, our way of life would not be viable.

[Alex W.]

What about their right behind?

[hypatiab7]

It sounds like he came to his conclusions from watching only the first movie and not reading any of the books, so his conclusions are worthless. If he'd
actually read the books, he'd know how wrong he is.

[rantingri...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 6:03:39 AM UTC-5, Alex W. wrote:
> That does rather depend on who [children's idols] are and

> what they do with their privileged position. Black
> emancipation, for instance, did depend on role models
> pushing the boundaries, showing that it could be done,
> that black Americans could be a success and make something
> of their lives. Think Sammy Davis Jr or Jesse Owens.

The arena of black entertainers and sports figures is
saturated enough. I would rather see more scientists,
doctors, engineers, inventors, etc -- folks who are
promoting intellectual and educational progress, not
contributing to the cultural malaise.

Throwing a ball, or running a mile, or entertaining people
are all great distractions, but intellectual evolution and
technological advancement are the *ONLY* achievements that
contribute to our "collective evolution", and thus, the
only ones that are immortal.

At some point (if we survive long enough) our biology will
most likely transform from a "necessity" to a "superfluity".
Our flesh will be as useful to us as T-Rex's tiny arms were
to it. Our intelligence is the *ONLY* part of us that is not
disposal. Therefor, we should strive to improve intelligence
above all things.

> But it's also a necessity that [consumerism slavery]

> should happen. Without this relentless consumerism, our
> whole system would collapse in short order. If people were
> to buy only what is needed, where consumers would deny
> themselves the excessive and conspicuous consumption that
> is the hallmark of our economic system, our way of life
> would not be viable.

I don't fundamentally disagree with your observation of
"practical economic necessity" within the capitalistic
system, however, I don't believe removing the "pandering
in consumer fetishism" would destroy our system either. Its
existence is merely the action of greed driven capitalist
picking the "low hanging fruits" of consumerism.

I believe that a compromise must exist between profits and
returns, and that, profitability is not a crime in and of
itself, but that, profitability without reciprocity *IS* a
crime. For instance: cheap distractions are not mutually
beneficial. A more collective attitude must be adopted in
economics before i will praise it. Corporations must ask
themselves: "Is my product contributing to the intellectual
evolution of man, or poisoning the well?"

There are plenty of legitimate consumer goods we *ALL*
require that will keep manufactures and inventors in
business into infinity. My disgust is with cheap, cheesy,
throw-away-fetishism that are merely corporate propaganda
which fabricates synthetic cultural identities in the minds
of the most vulnerable.

I'm not a Marxist. But neither am i a slave to "capitalist
fetishism". And I absolutely *REFUSE* to sell my intellectual
dignity, or that of my peers, to the lowest bidder!

[Don Martin]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:03:32 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 23/07/2015 00:57, rantingri...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-5, Wexford Eire wrote:
>>
>>> But when there's a steady flow of stories about magic,
>>> werewolves, vampires, and other nonsense without a single
>>> thing produced that introduces children to the wonders of
>>> science, of nature, of the magnificent accomplishments of
>>> engineering and the effort that went into all that, you
>>> raise them to be ignorant, silly, wishful, superficial and
>>> thoughtless. Dumas, Hugo, Twain, Hemingway, Zola, Tolstoy,
>>> Pearl Buck, Fitzgerald, and thousands of others wrote and
>>> write fiction that's steeped in reality. Why not expose
>>> children to stories about scientists or engineers or
>>> others who have done magnificent things to build the
>>> modern world.
>>
>> Yep. Kids only worship: Music Icons, Glitterati, and Sports
>> Figures. All of which are almost impossible to become, and
>> do nothing to enhance our society. Sure, they serve as great
>> distractions, but nothing else.
>
>That does rather depend on who they are and what they do with their
>privileged position. Black emancipation, for instance, did depend on
>role models pushing the boundaries, showing that it could be done, that
>black Americans could be a success and make something of their lives.
>Think Sammy Davis Jr or Jesse Owens.

Or Bill (at least I fucked grownup women--nothing queer about me)
Cosby, possibly the saddest man in this country today.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <f2fe0870-579c-434a...@googlegroups.com>,

I'm surprised at how fervently I wanted to defend the series. I know I
love the books and the movies, but I hadn't realized how very much.

[Alex W.]

Even that holds worthwhile lessons. A whole black generation grew up
with images of the Cosby family, of educated parents and well-adjusted
children showing that it is possible, that single mothers and multiple
fathers are not inevitable.

Plus, of course, that generation now gets to learn not to trust entirely
in their role models, that they are human too.

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:00:59 +0100, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>

He did a lot of good work as a role model, IIRC, on Sesame Street and
the Electric Company, (on our Public Broadcasting System) too. I am
sad that he has besmirched the really good stuff he has done in his
public past to appease the demons of his private crotch.

[Alex W.]

It raised relatively few eyebrows over here -- mostly because we had our
own celebrity sex scandal, and ours was worse. Much worse. We had
Jimmy Savile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <d1h3ou...@mid.individual.net>,

Pure horror.

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, July 23, 2015 at 7:03:39 AM UTC-4, Alex W. wrote:
> On 23/07/2015 00:57, rantingri...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:16:14 AM UTC-5, Wexford Eire wrote:
> >
> >> But when there's a steady flow of stories about magic,
> >> werewolves, vampires, and other nonsense without a single
> >> thing produced that introduces children to the wonders of
> >> science, of nature, of the magnificent accomplishments of
> >> engineering and the effort that went into all that, you
> >> raise them to be ignorant, silly, wishful, superficial and
> >> thoughtless. Dumas, Hugo, Twain, Hemingway, Zola, Tolstoy,
> >> Pearl Buck, Fitzgerald, and thousands of others wrote and
> >> write fiction that's steeped in reality. Why not expose
> >> children to stories about scientists or engineers or
> >> others who have done magnificent things to build the
> >> modern world.
> >
> > Yep. Kids only worship: Music Icons, Glitterati, and Sports
> > Figures. All of which are almost impossible to become, and
> > do nothing to enhance our society. Sure, they serve as great
> > distractions, but nothing else.
>
> That does rather depend on who they are and what they do with their
> privileged position. Black emancipation, for instance, did depend on
> role models pushing the boundaries, showing that it could be done, that
> black Americans could be a success and make something of their lives.
> Think Sammy Davis Jr or Jesse Owens.

I'd rather think of people like George Washington Carver and
Neil DeGrass Tyson. Sports figures and entertainers are fine
but once they do their thing, that's it. But scientists and
teachers actually do something to help people and further knowledge.

[%]

really , what do they do feel up the teen girls or seduce the teen boys

[rja.ca...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 19 July 2015 03:57:41 UTC+1, hypatiab7 wrote:
> Any thread starting with the letters aa, as per ALL alt.atheist FAQs, is to
> be responded to only by atheists. Any non-atheist who responds to an aa thread
> is telling the entire world that they are a troll.
>
> aa#44. Do any atheists here believe that religious indoctrination is child abuse?

It's clearly harmful.