Yes, it should be age restricted to those over 900 years.

I think by the time a kid is old enough to understand that they love and accept the cookie monster with all their heart, they should be asked to write in crayon that they also love Baby Jesus.

That'll keep them from going to hell, and then everybody can just fucking relax...

I also had a religious upbringing, and still say no.

We can't legislate what kids think, plus such an action would be as unethical as indoctirnation.

In practice it is impossible to regulate, I myself am raising my daughter to think critically and to know her facts, but as well I will teach her around 10, religions of the world in the most unbiased way possible (I haven't figured that part out yet)

Is happy to insist children not be taught when too young - white supremacy, Nazism, sexuality. Wasn't some couple recently deprived of their children after naming one of them Hitler?

There are things it's considered wrong to expose children to. Like porn. Why not religion as well? Why is telling kids they deserve to die when they are 5 or 6 not considered a crime worse than looking at naked people? 

And how can making a stand on the immorality of peddling self hatred and hatred of unbelievers to children be described as being as unethical as peddling self hatred and hating unbelievers?

This sounds like pathological altruism to me. Is there anything you would be unhappy for your children to be exposed to, Captain? 

Yes it is.

Which would be legislating what kids think.

It's VERY relevant.

You use the example of Porn, where do we draw the line on that? Most pop music videos, movies and TV shows are basically porn. In MANY many cases, objectifying women is child abuse. Children get abused due to this. So is there an age restriction on what kids can look at in that regard? No. Should there be one? No.

Yes, there are many many things I wouldn't want my children to be exposed to[in no particular order]:

Paris Hilton, Perez Hilton, Cleavage, Muffin tops, Lady Gaga, Facebook, Liberals, Pro-choice hippies, Enviromental hippies,  Willam Lane Craig, Ben Stein, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, My Little Pony, Porn sites, Strip clubs, Clubs in general, Taxis, Brazilian whores, stupid colllege "respect" campaigns, Grammar Nazis, Real Nazis, Communists, Perverted guys.....etc...etc...etc....

But do you know what I first and foremost wouldn't want my kids exposed to?

A society where the government tells me what I can look at and listen to. A government that restricts the flow of ideas. A society that's willing to stoop to enourmous lows to get what they want.  What would be the punishment if little 15 year old Timmy happens upon a Christian site? What would be the punishment if he reads the Bible? What would be the punishment if somebody prays infront of their 7 year old?

The fact of the manner is, child abuse is child abuse regardless of if it's religious or not.  If there's an instance of religious child abuse, we should treat it as such, but we shouldn't simply put in this stupid legislation and peddle hatred of believers and pretend we're more moral than they are.

We're not getting rid of the religious thought police, we're replacing it.

It is pathological altruism, AE.

I'm with both you and Bob on this one.

This is the RRS.

Let's cut the bullshit.

There's virtually nothing that's self esteem building in the bible. There's virtually no better manual to mentally and emotionally anguish and torment a child than these books that are taught as reality.

I don't give a shit what kind of lipstick you put on the Jesus pig. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Read the bible, FFS.

The direct consequences and collateral damage this perverse and divisive child rearing has brought over the millenia is too mindboggling to extrapolate.

And nobody's going to feed me the horseshit that Christianity and Islam aren't pure fucking evil. The 'better' you follow Christianity or Islam, the more fucking evil you are.

Period.

I would say it's far worse than showing them pictures of naked people, but I already addressed this. I never said we shouldn't prosecute or condemn child abuse.

And you didn't answer my question as to if I give a kid a Bible, what my punishment should be.

Duh, the atheist movement is trying to effect what kids are thinking. Advertisers try to effect what kids are thinking. They may be wrong, but if they can't express it, we can't  tell them they're wrong.

And the fact that some will not be noticeably affected by video games, or sexuality in TV is NOT relevant to legislating aimed at protecting those who are. Why don't you care about the people affected by those Bob? You're giving them the right to do it.

You're also assuming the effects of religion are always negative. It's impossible for religion to only affect kids one way.

No, it's not.

So you get to draw the line?

Oh, you have no problem with it? Well then that settles it. What about the people that do? What about the people who have no problem with kids being raised with religion?

be but that has no particular bearing on whether or not it's moral or immoral to tell young children they deserve eternal immolation on the basis of a mythology supported by no evidence. This is the fulcrum of our debate. I'm not suggesting you said we should not condemn or prosecute child abuse - I know perfectly well you said no such thing. I was drawing my own parallel. 

I've said here many times before I think monotheism is a form of cultural bigotry that should be legislated out of existence. We have anti racial hatred laws and anti bullying in the workplace laws, anti sexism laws and anti villification laws that protect religions from criticism but none that protect children from the long terms effects of too-young exposure to violent religious doctrines. 

I'm by no means questioning your integrity, nor your humanitarian stance, which everyone knows is long established. I'd simply like to see the damage religion inflicts on children seen for what it is and for kids to be protected from it by law. And sure, I'm well aware I am projecting my own bitter experiences. 

You realize you are going to ban pretty much everything in the entire world. Everything has potential to cause significant harm to a child. That's why they need parents, the parents job is not to make sure they never encounter anything harmful, its the parents job to make sure the child is not harmed by the harmful stuff. You simply cannot hide children away from things which could harm them, all you can do is guide them through the mess. You just cannot legislate good parenting, cannot be done. You can force parents not to beat there kids, but you cannot make them raise there children well. All you are going to do is get in the way of good parents raising there children the best they know how.

Then write letters to Fred Phelps and William Lane Craig. If you see a Christian program change the channel or turn off the TV.

The parallel I was trying to draw is that, as Tapey said, ANYTHING could be banned using the logic used to justify this. All that will be on is Seasame Street. Oh wait, not even that, animal rights advocates will get their panties in a knot about the mistreatment of Otters. I'm also an advocate of the touchy feely "everybody is special!" political correctness of Seasame street is harmful to children. Where's your god now?

And if they pass? If they show no sign of abuse or dysfunction?

You're right it doesn't, however I am not in the habit of legislating morality.

Because it IS. Jump through as many hoops as you want, you're basically saying, "Of course kids are free to think what they want, they just can't think of certain things" or "We're not telling them what they can't think, they just can't think certain things.

DUH Bob_Obvious! But with this, we're not being as open as we can. In order to get kids to think critically about religion, they have to be exposed to it.

The point I was trying to get at, is the point Tapey made. We'll pretty much have to ban everything.

I don't recall ever saying, as an atheist, that religion is a positive force in society, or that we shouldn't try to get rid of it.

I'm also concerned about the obsession of everything religion is bad. AE and others share their stories about their religious upbringing and I'm sure they're true. I also read stories of other's religious upbringing, of how they got out of gangs for Jebus, or how they stopped immoral behaviour and started spreading hippy Jebus messages. I'm sure those stories are true too.  Either one are, as you said, irrelevant.

Of course religion can cause harm to children. So can video games, TV, parents, peers, advertisers, politicians, lobbyists, atheists on forums etc...

My position has been that the harms in religion are not unique to religion, NOTHING is unique to religion.

My position on this is you can't legislate morality. Christianity is trying to do that, and now we have the atheist movement trying to do it. Goodie.  Child abuse is child abuse. But a mom uttering to her 5 year old daugther "I I believe that God exists" and reading her hippy Jesus stuff of how God made the pretty little flowers and Jimmy is mean because he doesn't have Jebus in his life is not child abuse.

If you guys think raising your kids to think unbelievers are immoral, what about the atheists who pretty much raise their kids to thinking believers are immoral, and selfish? Should we legislate what our kids are exposed to in that regard? Should there be an age limit for reading Christopher Hitchens? Should there be an age limit on this site[forced by the government, rather than willingly put into place by Sapient on his own regard]? Also, seeing as there would be an age limit on Christian material, that means any atheist material that references Christian material would have similar restrictions.

I am not sure that has been conclusively proven.  This was one of my main disagreements with the book, Why God won't Go Away by Andrew Neuberg.

They even tried to duck the issue by claiming that people who were "spiritual" (the newest cultural meme that has been overused to the point of nonsense, IMO. ) lived fuller lives.

 I wonder if any studies have been done to show otherwise ?

In part, I am in agreement with you about legislation interference with religious indoctrination.

However, I see religion as a poison and wish there was someway for people to evolve past this.

My experiences are somewhat biased, due to the fact that I came from a heavily religious home and wasted a good part of my life on religion. I feel somewhat cheated of my younger years as a result.

I do not have a clear cut answer as to what the next step should be. I DO believe that it is just plain wrong to raise children with fear of hellfire and to raise children to believe that people are "an abomination" in the eyes of a fictional god if they have sex outside of marriage, choose to not give birth, are gay, or of a different belief system. Hell, billions of wars and mass murders have resulted from religion.

I am a little bit on the fence about this issue.

I don't like being on the fence. I have a passionate dislike for people that sit on the fence because I do not believe that issues are a spectator sport.

Marty, I agree with your points and all of the other Atheists on here about the dangers of indoctrination. I need look no further than my own childhood to attest as to how screwed up religion can make one's life.  Religion is a terrible and evil thing, in my opinion and I would love to see it erased.

I am just not sure how we would be able to put such restrictions in place without allowing for more room for government control, further down the road. I know that sounds a bit like a slippery slope fallacy, but I still have concerns about where this could lead to.

You raise a good point about child endangerment.

Take all of these cases where children have died from neglect because of christian science parents refusing to allow these children to have medical treatment.

I think any parent that could allow a child to die because "god" was supposed to heal them is one of the most appalling crimes that I can imagine.

I don't know if every follower of christian science follows this abhorrent practice, but to make a case against christian science parents is painfully clear, due to the nature of some of these neglectful crimes.

The area gets a little bit grey when there is not a crime to actually prove, other than teaching children religion. Although I do think of indoctrination as a form of abuse, it is much harder to prove.

You mention evidence, yet you have not posted any links or evidence to COUNTER my responses.  Conjecture. by any other name, is still conjecture.

Stop building strawmen.

Britney Spears and Lady Gaga are entertainers, not a preacher telling people he knows that you are damned and will burn in hell because he knows the 'Truth', nor are they WLC who claims to have scholarly studied and can logically prove that Fred Phelps speaks the 'Truth'.

While you personally might not approve of young women flaunting their beautiful bodies and sexuality, they are not lecturing anyone. And don't even try the angle that it puts pressure on girls to look and act a 'certain way'.

It does no such thing.

If you want to debate that, start another thread instead of derailing this one, and we can pick it up there.

I actually appreciate that they're on TV and YouTube. That way I get the quotes straight from the horse's mouth.

You're right.

So much was banned.

Blacks were enslaved, not given basic human rights. Women didn't have equal rights. Homosexuality was a crime in many areas of the States. There were many sexual acts that were illegal even between a man and a woman. They are still laws on the books that prohibit oral and anal sex that could be legally enforced, in many places in the States.

These went against basic human rights of the individual.

However, you are strawmanning what we are talking about. No child should be bullied and tormented, denigrated and taught low self esteem. That's the topic. Stop dancing around the topic.

Do nothing till there are signs of abuse.

Read the Bible or the Koran. 

These books aren't literature. These are claimed to be manifestos of the most powerful force in the universe that has a will to unleash unimaginable fury at people, and it's taught that this is fact to young children. 

It does.

There's testimony in this thread and all over this site from ex-theists, so obviously you're mistaken, or simply full of shit.

And do you think her children would not have psychological issues from being raised by such a rabid and hostile parent, compared to an average Swede, for example?

I guess you missed the video of the woman being grilled by the Christian woman on her beliefs. Tell me how often you think atheists circle the wagons like that with a stranger invited to lunch?

Argument from ignorance.

No. Not a chance. 

You're arguing from ignorance again. Study psychology and sexology. There are volumes written on serious dysfunctions that are the direct result of core religious dogmas being indoctrinated into kids.

There are. Plenty. You have testimony on this forum to begin with.

Argument from ignorance.

A quick Google search turned up an article in Psychology Today, a book contained in the article, and a 23 page white paper you can read.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

Yes Harley, I've had a religious upbringing as well. I also remember the fear of the wrath of god.

http://cptpineapple.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/a-reflection/

But nevertheless, it's not up to me to disprove your claims, it's up to you to prove them.

I stated that while my personal experiences with religion did not prove that religion was poison, that it left me disgusted with religion as a whole and that I felt that religion was poison.

Just like several times in the previous posts I mentioned that I already had a bias against religion before the discussion began.

So there is alot of personal feelings and experiences of mine being interjected here.

I  also repeatedly noted my apprehension of allowing the government to regulate parenting and children. As much as I hate religions in general, I still would have major concerns about age limitations and restrictions, only because I would be afraid that government entities could misuse or abuse the power. I don't have evidence to support that concern either. I even mentioned that I could be falling victim to the slippery slope fallacy.

So I am not sure what claims that I am suppose to prove ?

You referenced a study that shows religious people live more fuller and productive lives.  I simply question the truth of that and asked if there were studies that showed evidence to the contrary.

I DO think that the history of religion, as well as the inhumane teachings of the world's major ones, do not need a whole lot of proof as to the abhorrent nature of their doctrines and faith. I think they pretty much speak for themselves.

Cpt,

You may be confusing studies on the personal benefits of religion, with studies such as Gregory Paul's which found negative correlation between religiosity of different nations and indicators of societal health, which we have argued about before.

They can both be true. Religion does help an individual cope with difficult events and conditions, such as poverty and higher levels of mortality.

But that in itself, along with other attitudes which come along with some varieties of religion, can reduce the drive to improve the state of the society in ways that will be of real long term benefit.

Religion can also encourage building of institutions to help the poor and needy, which is worthy in itself, but that is not going to address the causes of why that society might have so many people needing such help.

There is a real problem in Africa where the local religions encourage large families, leading to population growth which is driving those countries further into poverty. And of course the Pope is doing his bit to 'help' by discouraging condom use.

Whatever its merits or flaws, it is impossible to achieve.
Compliance would be voluntary, regardless of potential punishment for infraction; unless all children were taken from their parents and monitored 24/7 until becoming adults.
And even in such Orwellian conditions, what kind of tactics would be used against those who created a religion? It's a common occurrence. The only reason most of them die is that it's the most competitive industry ever, and the market has been sewn up for centuries. The only truly new religion I'm aware of to appear in the last 1500 some years is scientology.
But if you remove that particular barrier then you're going to have to deal with the potential of consequent faiths that rise up in the vacuum of religious organisation.
However you look at it, I don't see a way to achieve the goal in a humane fashion.

Yes, I remember the Greg Paul studies, and unless there has been a revolution in the field of statistics, that invalidated correlation=/=causation, my points against the misuse of the study still stand.

The only way that study could be used scientifically, is that to show that atheism doesn't cause a moral apocolypse. Any other use is just an illogical extenstion of that, and Greg Paul has made clear in the study itself, it makes no claims of causation, in order to do that he would had to have more controls such as population density, concentration of youth, economic gaps etc... He didn't. Not because he's a bad scientists, but because that wasn't what he was testing for.

On the otherhand, I wasn't saying religion is positively associated with mental health, therefore religion CAUSES positive mental health, I'm not that stupid. What I was doing, is ironically using Greg Paul's logic that if religion negatively affect mental health, it would be correlated as such [just being correlated with bad mental health doesn't mean that it CAUSES bad mental health.], however since religion seems to be a negative predictor of what people claim it causes seems to cast doubt on whether or not it actually causes it. [such as the Greg Paul study showed that atheism was a negative predictor of social ills, ergo casting doubt on the claim that atheism causes social ills.]. I could just as easily say that the bad living condition CAUSES the religion, because people turn to religion for comfort. This would also explain the correlation.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel the need to re-write my stats book as "correlation does not equal causation EXCEPT for when we feel it does."

Assume that everything you have said is true. And that we are just going to accept things people are saying as proof.

I grew up religous, it did not harm me. Therefore while it can be harmful does not mean has to be.

Now why are we banning it again? Oh you want to ban everything that is potentially harmful to children? That seems the logical extension, but don't let me put words into your mouth correct me if you disagree. But that does seem to be the reason you guys want it banned, it is harmful. While we are at it why don't we ban divorce and parents fighting. Can be harmful to the child. Ban spooky campfire stories, some kids are terrified of the boogie man. While we are at it lets ban fairy tales like little red riding hood, lady gets eaten by a wild animal that cannot be good for the child. Hell lets ban having a second child as the first child will get jealous and feel neglected, besides when they grow up the younger one is going to get beaten to a pulp often. Fuck it ban bad parenting, that for sure is harmful to kids. I am sure you can guess all of this is just plain stupid, but it is possible that this stuff could harm a child. Children can take almost anything the wrong way. It is not the parents job to hide the child from this stuff, rather it is the parents job to guide them through it so it cannot harm them. Seriously it is not just ideas you would have to ban, objects as well. Any thing hard could be potentially harmful to a kid, more so than christianity. By having it could be harmful as the reason for banning it and because it is unnecessary, you open yourself to way to much crap. I am sure you see the point, even if you do not accept a single one of these things as potentially harmful. Im sure you could list plenty unnecessary things which have the potential to harm a kid.

The only way I could accept this is if in an overwhelming majority of cases christianity had a clear negative impact on children. Also it must be demonstratable that this negative impact is not the result of bad parenting but of the believes being taking in the intended context.

Seriously, you get good parents and you get bad parents, you cannot force bad parents to be good parents by banning everything that could be bad. There is too much stuff which is potentially harmfull to do it. Your kid is going to live in a bubble.

That's not the topic.

That's not the topic.

You and cpt. might make a great couple. You both like to strawman...

There was never any doubt in my mind it should be.

Then start a thread about your conclusions. This thread is about Christianity. 

You'd have to prove that there isn't anything in the bible that can be directly the cause of serious dysfunction or hostile and antisocial behaviour towards any 'group' of people.

No, it's off on a tangent, and why you are losing the debate by default.

You are talking about parenting in general.

You quoted me and responded to me making general comments on parenting.

I wasn't debating parenting in general.

That doesn't make it true. So, you're 'telling' us your opinion.

We have personal testimony here about the effects of being bullied into the cult of Christianity and it's dogmas by their parents, that proves you're wrong.

Get with the program... 

@Rednef. To much effort to quote that mess and respond to each individual point so here it is without the quotes.

So basically because I come to a different conclusion then chrisitianity is harmful to children, I must start my own thread? Seriously? If I want to say christianity is not the problem I need to give an alternative as to why christianity could cause harm. It is not off topic at all.

You say I would have to prove nothing in the bible can cause dysfunction or somthing. Thats not how things work, you prove that in one place there is something that causes serious dysfunction. You are just doing what the theist does when he says prove there is no god. I could go idea by idea in the entire bible but I don't have to, that is your job as you are making the claim that it is harmful. Now watch the clever bit, even if you find something, you need to be able to show that it is not just bad parenting causing the problem (see how bad parenting is relevent yet?)

I am most certainly not talking about parenting in general, although it can be applied in general. I am talking about this specific case. In this specific case chrisitianity is not the problem, the problem is parents parenting there children badly causing there children to interpret ideas in a harmful way when they do not need to be interpreted in that way. If you want proof, look around to all the healthy well adjusted young chrisitans growing up. Yes there are dysfuntional ones as well, bad parenting is what caused it not christianity.

You have testimony saying it is bad? Did you not read my first line? I was also raised christain and it did not harm me at all. Therefore it does not have to be harmfull. Therefore I need a way to explain why others were harmed and I wasn't. Therefore I need to bring in bad parenting. Because of this age restricting christianity will do not solve the problem as christianity was not the problem in the first place bad parenting was. Is it really that hard to understand how this is all on topic and not talking about anything in general?

And yes I am making the implication that anyone here who is saying that there parents raising them christain and that it harmed them had bad parents... at least in this area. This is an example of a tangent if  you are still looking for one.