How to protect children/vulnerable from Christian emotional abuse?

[Owlswing]

I've got absolutely no idea if any of my kids will turn out pagan or not. So far one kind of identifies as pagan, one atheist, one X-Boxist.

My youngest grandson (9) is definitely an X-Boxist!

When my nephew was nine, I'm pretty sure he identified as a Sith lord.

That was when my boy was seven.

LOL!

[ProfessorDavey]

Athiest doesn't always = anti-theist.
But anti-theists are nearly always athiests.

I live in a non religious and mainly athiest household.

I said I thought children should be protected from anti theists not protected from all athiests

But where is your evidence that this is even an issue.

Where are all these 'anti-theist' parents somehow indoctrinating their kids in anti-theism (whatever that is). I can show you evidence as long as your arm of parents indoctrinating their children throughout their up bring to actively participate and belief in a particular religion, I can't think of a single example of households bringing up children as anti-theists.

It is a 'non-issue'.

[floo]

As I have said before, as there is no evidence to support any religious position children should be permitted to decide for themselves about such issues, and not be influenced either way.

[Shaker]

The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?

Have you considered seeking help for this condition of yours?

[Shaker]

Not that that has any bearing on what I said ...

[Hope]

The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?

Shaker, this is a perfectly legit. criticism of some campaigns that we might otherwise deem acceptable.  Take, for instance, the campaign to outlaw parents smacking a child that has been on-going for donkey's years.  Such people are trying to remove a parent's right to discipline a child in a way they think fit.  OK, I'd agree that, if that discipline tips over into abuse, those parents ought to be sanctioned in some way, but the vast majority of parents don't use abusive levels of physical punishment.

The same goes for the BHA and the NSS; they seek to stop children being educated in a way that covers all life bases, determining instead that they should only be taught within a proportion of reality.

In a previous post, 6 months (?) ago, I referred to a couple of children that my wife child-minded when our daughters were young.  Neither of their parents were religious, but whereas the mother was largely agnostic, the father was hard-line atheist.

One day the mother told us that, the previous evening, he had asked their 7-year-old son what he had learnt about at school that day - as a good parent does - and had listened happily to the stuff about addition, grammar, painting, sport and the like but when the lad mentioned that his class had also done some 'religious study' (my terminology) Dad went ballistic and told him never to mention the topic again.

Understandably, the lad asked why, which sent Dad into paroxysms of fury, to the extent that he shouted at and hit the lad - all this in front of his 5 year sister.  It was clear that this wasn't a joke or a tall-tale - the lad had bruises on this wrists where Dad had grabbed him very hard and both he and his sister were really shaky.  Mum asked that we didn't mention the event to anyone - but the teachers noticed it during the day and within a month or so, Dad had moved out of the family home.

Unfortunately, it was in his name - no way did he trust his wife to hold joint ownership - and he moved back in about 6 months later and evicted her and the children about 6 months after that.  IIRC, it took him about 12 years to agree to a divorce.

I appreciate that this is far greater than mere atheism, but I, and others I know (including his wife and some of the teachers) believe that it was his atheism that led him to such irrational behaviour.

[floo]

The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?

Shaker, this is a perfectly legit. criticism of some campaigns that we might otherwise deem acceptable.  Take, for instance, the campaign to outlaw parents smacking a child that has been on-going for donkey's years.  Such people are trying to remove a parent's right to discipline a child in a way they think fit.  OK, I'd agree that, if that discipline tips over into abuse, those parents ought to be sanctioned in some way, but the vast majority of parents don't use abusive levels of physical punishment.

The same goes for the BHA and the NSS; they seek to stop children being educated in a way that covers all life bases, determining instead that they should only be taught within a proportion of reality.

In a previous post, 6 months (?) ago, I referred to a couple of children that my wife child-minded when our daughters were young.  Neither of their parents were religious, but whereas the mother was largely agnostic, the father was hard-line atheist.

One day the mother told us that, the previous evening, he had asked their 7-year-old son what he had learnt about at school that day - as a good parent does - and had listened happily to the stuff about addition, grammar, painting, sport and the like but when the lad mentioned that his class had also done some 'religious study' (my terminology) Dad went ballistic and told him never to mention the topic again.

Understandably, the lad asked why, which sent Dad into paroxysms of fury, to the extent that he shouted at and hit the lad - all this in front of his 5 year sister.  It was clear that this wasn't a joke or a tall-tale - the lad had bruises on this wrists where Dad had grabbed him very hard and both he and his sister were really shaky.  Mum asked that we didn't mention the event to anyone - but the teachers noticed it during the day and within a month or so, Dad had moved out of the family home.

Unfortunately, it was in his name - no way did he trust his wife to hold joint ownership - and he moved back in about 6 months later and evicted her and the children about 6 months after that.  IIRC, it took him about 12 years to agree to a divorce.

I appreciate that this is far greater than mere atheism, but I, and others I know (including his wife and some of the teachers) believe that it was his atheism that led him to such irrational behaviour.

Of course that father behaved in a disgustingly cruel way, just like my 'born again' sadistic paternal grandmother. According to my father, uncles and aunt she beat religion into her six kids screaming Biblical verses like 'spare the rod and spoil the child. As I have said many times she gave me terrible nightmares by describing her version of the tortures of hell to me from the age of two.

It isn't religion or atheism which causes a person to be bad, it is their personality, imo. Some religious people use their religion as an excuse for their nastiness like those who are bigoted towards homosexuality.

[Aruntraveller]

Don't you just love anecdotes for every occasion.

[Rhiannon]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

[Aruntraveller]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

Quite.

[floo]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

Agreed!

[Hope]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

Well, that wasn't the view of a number of professionals who dealt with him.  Clearly some here don't want to admit that one's belief system - in this guy's case, fundamentalist atheism - can control one as much as Floo wants us to believe it can.

[Hope]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'.  Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards.  As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years. 

I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.

[Rhiannon]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

Well, that wasn't the view of a number of professionals who dealt with him.  Clearly some here don't want to admit that one's belief system - in this guy's case, fundamentalist atheism - can control one as much as Floo wants us to believe it can.

I doubt very much you are party to the views of any 'professionals' unless you were one of them. 'Fundamentalist' atheism served his purpose just as fundamentalist Christianity did Floo's family. It's an excuse, not a reason.

The big difference is the superstitious fear that comes with some forms of fundamentalist religion, and it is this that can turn otherwise loving families into monsters.

[Owlswing]

I doubt very much you are party to the views of any 'professionals' unless you were one of them. '

When are you going to realise that Hope has experience of just about everything, knows experts in just about everything and has had contact with just about every cultiure and religion in the entire world.

To put it bluntly I am amazed that he is not of first name terms with the leaders of every country and every religion and every scientific discipline in the world,

RULE #1 of Hope's rules - Hope's knowledge of absolutely anything MUST NOT be challenged!

RULE #2 of Hope's rules - Hope's authority on anything is absolute!

[Rhiannon]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'.  Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards.  As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years. 

I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.

Where have I said that Floo's abusive upbringing was due to Christianity? Very often it is an excuse that ends up getting past down the generations. I have seen this first hand; an aunt of mine married an abusive man who then conveyed to the LDS and who used God as his excuse for violently controlling his wife and children. He was a violent control freak who would have been that way with or without religion.

But atheism does not cause people to violently 'exorcise' a 'possessed' child; nor does it cause parents to force their children through 'correction' or turf them onto the street because they are gay or trans. Ignorant superstitious fear does that, and that belongs with religion, not unbelief.

[Owlswing]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'.  Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards.  As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years. 

I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.

Where have I said that Floo's abusive upbringing was due to Christianity? Very often it is an excuse that ends up getting past down the generations. I have seen this first hand; an aunt of mine married an abusive man who then conveyed to the LDS and who used God as his excuse for violently controlling his wife and children. He was a violent control freak who would have been that way with or without religion.

But atheism does not cause people to violently 'exorcise' a 'possessed' child; nor does it cause parents to force their children through 'correction' or turf them onto the street because they are gay or trans. Ignorant superstitious fear does that, and that belongs with religion, not unbelief.

Well said.

[Aruntraveller]

Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards.

Can you point to these double standards - because I can see no sign of them. As far as I can see Rhi has ststed that generally control freaks will use whatever excuse they feel appropriate to control and abuse others.

As for me having double standards - I think you are letting your personal perception of me interfere with what I actually do, or do not say.

[Shaker]

The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children?

The same goes for the BHA and the NSS; they seek to stop children being educated in a way that covers all life bases, determining instead that they should only be taught within a proportion of reality.

Evidence, please.

[ProfessorDavey]

All Hope is describing is a damaged control freak hitting his kid. People like that will have their buttons - if it hadn't been religion it would be leaving trainers in the hall or eating with your mouth open.

I love the illogicality of this argument: if a child is abused, either physically or emotionally, by someone it is because of that person's being a 'damaged control freak', but as soon as one adds religion t mix, the 'damaged control freak' explanation is instantly ditched in favour of 'it's the fault of the religion'.  Rhi, you and Trent are so transparent in your double standards.  As for Floo, at least in her previous post in which she refers to personality has finally agreed with what I, Jim and others here have been trying to impress on her for some years. 

I'm not saying that a belief system, be that Islam (ie ISIS and Al Queda), Christianity, Hinduism (ie the RSS), etc - or atheism - has nothing to do with someone's behaviour, but it is always when an extreme, fundamental understanding of a belief is at play that it does so.

Hold on just one moment Hope.

It was you who very clearly attributed the father's actions in your story to him being an atheist. In what way is that different to someone else attributing actions to their being religious.

Given that violent people tend to have experienced violence when young I wonder what was in the upbringing of this person to make them both violent and also extremely anti religion. Might it perhaps be that he had suffered violence linked to an extreme religious upbringing themselves, hence an explanation for both aspects of their behaviour. Hope - do you know the details of this father's upbringing?

[ippy]

Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:

"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?

Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.

I'll leave it there, I was going to try to enlighten you and then thought, no point, it would be beyond you.

ippy     

[Hope]

Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:

"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?

Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.

Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best.  The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.

[Rhiannon]

The BHA does not seek to influence what happens in the home, but only in schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

The BHA does not seek to influence what happens in the home, but only in schools.

Indeed, and the NSS is, by definition about what happens within the public arena and not by private individuals acting in a private capacity.

[Owlswing]

Couldn't help noticing this part of your post Hope, where you said:

"The BHA and the NSS are trying to gain control of other people's children"?

Well this is news to me and I'm sure the BHA and NSS would be surprised.

Ippy, may I suggest that you 1) reread the post, where you will find it is a quote from someone else's post and 2) reread the post to see that I say that there are a number of organisations'campaigns who, in some way or other seek to remove a parent's right to bring a child up in the way they feel is best.  The BHA may not have an overt aim to do that - I've never bothered investigating their website for that, but their argument that children shouldn't be exposed to religious ideas is effectively an argument for restricting a parent's rights in this area.

I realise that you like to misread others' posts so that you can claim to be making a point - but you do it so often that its becoming a bit obvious.

Hope

Give it up!

Your blinkered bias for religion and against anything else is well documented on this forum - I can almost predict almost word for word what your response is going to be to any particular post and I am not the cleverest here, I expect there are others who can predict the typos as well.