I don't think you appeared evasive Matty.

Words and terms are defined by convention and I think most people would agree with statement 1 without modification because of their understanding of the term "child abuse".

If I were to say "Smacking is child abuse." the implication is obvious and it would give support to those who banned it, whether that is my intention or not.

At the risk of looking stupid... if you consider some teachings on a par with child abuse and do not call for intervention then isn't that position based on pragmatism? Also, wasn't the "reasonable force" law pragmatic. I read somewhere that objectivists despise pragmatism but I may not understand the word "pragmatism" correctly, it's not a word that I encounter often.

BTW: I disagree with and disapprove of the hell teachings discussed here - as do many christians. But my beliefs aren't relevant to the discussion, ay?

I disagree. However, I think the word 'therefore' is another point all in its own
Like "however"?

While basically still standing by what I originally said I agree with Claudia that it's impossible to be completely neutral and I'm not encouraging you to not express your opinions. What I'm saying is people should encourage their kids to think for themselves also. Try to (while giving your kids your opinion) present them with both sides of the argument as impartially as you can rather than indoctrinate them in to your philosophy.

Now I don't really have a big problem with raising your kids as Christians per se and I certainly don’t think there's a point where the government should get involved. But I think scaring your kid with the idea of burning in hell is something very twisted and wrong.

Raising your kids with the idea of god and an earth created by said God...Well as Linz said they'll reach an age where they will probably question that anyway and what conclusions they will reach is anybody's guess. Hardwiring them to not question those ideas with scare tactics is just wrong and in my opinion, child abuse. Just a form of child abuse that can't be dealt with by law seeing as once you try and word it in to legislation the line of government interference in to parenting will become rather blurry.

EDIT: Reed, I don't want to be seen as evasive so I'll praphrase by anwering your question very directly

1. It is just for the government to prevent [physical] child abuse. - Now I agree
2. Some religious teachings are child abuse. - I agree
3. Therefore it is just for the government to prevent some religious teachings. - I disagree. However, I think the word 'therefore' is another point all in its own

A child brought up fearing Hell has been scarred psychologically and emotionally, no doubt, but it's not the government's job to ensure perfect outcomes in every sphere of life. In our libertarian society folks would still do things Objectivists didn't like, including raising their kids as Christians. Them's the breaks. We're not utopians. Kids raised this way are still free to get over it in adulthood, as millions have indeed done. Their volition is not crippled. The only abuse that merits government intervention is physical—and even there I for one am a believer in our previous law allowing "reasonable force" for disciplinary reasons.

Linz

PS—Rather than fret about whether Objectivists would have you banned from raising your kids religiously, which we wouldn't, why not give some more thought to the damage you'd be doing to them thereby? Why teach kids that bullshit is true?

Everyone -
What (if anything) is wrong with this thinking?

1. It is just for the government to prevent child abuse.
2. Some religious teachings are child abuse.
3. Therefore it is just for the government to prevent some religious teachings.

to answer your question about where the line is...

Everybody is brainwashed with some kind of ideology when they're growing up - even if it's just floating, passive, complacent fickleness... it gets embedded as a "standard."

I think being neutral is not only inappropriate, it's impossible. Children absorb what their parents don't say as well. What adults choose to remain silent about speaks volumes, just as much as what they do vocalise. Think of how "neutral" many parents once were on sex... if the topic came up around children they quickly moved on or changed the subject after an awkward pause. This sent a strong message to many growing minds that sex was either dangerous, uncomfortable or downright wrong, and abandoned those young minds to learning the highest possible expression of self-esteem from the gutters of the main-stream Swamp.

There is nothing wrong with "brainwashing" children with truth and rational reality. But that's the good thing about rational reality, you don't have to hammer it in, it shows itself to be what it is because of A is A. People only have to be brainwashed in order to accept silly ideas, the equivalent of A being non-A.

Re: Christians etc... The idea of instilling the concept of hell is, in my view, abusive to a child... spiritually and emotionally abusive. A child cannot even begin a contemplation without the threat of a heinous punishment hanging over him like a guillotine blade - what sort of objectivity is possible under those conditions?? None.

If christians were to take the belief in hell out of their doctrine, I reckon 99.9% of them would choose not to be christians anymore. But that one doctrine gets them by the balls and holds them for a lifetime. The essence of christianity is fear... but, like muslims, they'll tell you it's all about peace and love.

I think it is important to remember that children need to be told the truth. The truth is that God is bullshit, people shouldn't steal my money, etc. I would be doing a real disservice to my child if I remained neutral on issues I am not neutral about. She deserves to hear me speak my mind. I wouldn't force her to say or do the things I believe, unless life, limb, or other people's rights were on the line.

She is free to grow up and become a liberal. But again, I would owe her the truth. I don't enjoy spending as much time around irrational people as I do rational ones.

Kelly

Suma,

You are right. I have a friend right now who is afraid to do anything with her kids that her ex doesn't like because she is afraid the dad will use the fact that she is an atheist in court to get full custody. It is definitely one of those things that courts frown upon in custody cases.

Kelly

I think initiating force is a slippery slope towards initiating more force. Anything before that is perfectly OK.

It's none of our business what other parents teach their children. To refer to their teachings as child abuse is to be part of the slippery slope toward force.

then they came for the atheists. Slippery slope indeed. I have heard (from an atheist, so anecdotal) that in the U.S., a parent (esp. father) can expect a raw deal in a custody battle (for kids) solely on account of being an atheist.

I don't care if others lack common sense or logic skills, as long as we have a system where they cannot tell me how to live my life. I'll stick to making fun of all the religious types a la South Park.

You're right that is scary. From what I know Wiccan aint even that bad, it's just fruity.

I think it was about a year or two ago in my home state (Indiana) where a court decided that it was unlawful to raise your children in "non-mainstream religion". The parents in question were Wiccan but it's one of those decisions that just straight up scares you.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

I'm assuming your parents didn't torment you as a child with vivid depictions of hell in order to encourage your religious beliefs? That's the point where I call it child abuse. Sandi took it to another level but I don't agree with her. A lot of very intelligent people were raised by religious parents, hell even Richard Dawkins went to catholic school.

However I don't think the law should see any religious up bringing that doesn't involve physical torture as child abuse simply because that could lead us down a very slippery slope of government interference. I just think society should frown upon scare mongering towards kids.

If it is correct to have laws that protect children from abuse and if teaching beliefs to your children is considered abuse then it would follow that laws should be passed to prevent this abuse.

You shouldn't take me seriously however, I've been seriously retarded through religious indoctrination.

I would definitely draw the line at that. Are you actually arguing we could do this or were you making the statement to illustrate a point?

Maybe laws should be passed to prevent this type of child abuse.

As far as I am concerned there is no difference between manipulation and indoctrination. Both are detrimental to development and are therefore abusive. I emphatically consider that religion has a huge impact on common sense and discernment skills such as logic.

One would assume common sense would be the catalyst for a balanced and rounded upbringing, but common sense is variable certainly not comparative to intellect. Common sense and or lessons of deduction and logic should be encouraged and taught at schools, INSTEAD of religion. There are many adults with high and low IQ's whose possession of common sense is very much lacking and their ability to apply logic is non-existent.

Perhaps if more parents had developed logic skills & taught to exercise common sense, they would have the ability to pass this on to their children.

One final word about common sense. During my life, I have observed adults and children who exercise common sense without a second thought. For example: Performing a task and a problem crops up. Some children or adults directly apply common sense to rectify the problem and get on with the task in hand. Others will face a brick wall and will completely stop to ask for instructions or assistance. They are not free thinkers and constantly need guidance and assurance. In my opinion this lack of ability is retardation.

In conclusion, I say that "Free thinkers" are seriously retarded through religious indoctrination and manipulative abuse.

So earlier I was being challenged on my attitude toward parenting and politics. I found Ross and Kelly's responses particularly interesting and they gave me food for thought. I still stand by my original position of being as neutral as possible but I want to ask everyone where you think the line is between raising your kid and manipulating them.

I was watching Richard Dawkin’s 'Root of all Evil' documentary and they cover the idea that parents who scare their children with the idea of hill are committing an act of child abuse. I assume pretty much all of us agree with Dawkins to an extent. Is that because of the fear element to it or is it just because we disagree with the Christian outlook?

There's a starting point.

could not help noticing Hillary saw no need to include her own child in the photograph when the book was originally published

I wonder whose idea it was? In the first picture, the she-bitch is airbrushed to look like Carol Brady and there are 6 kids in the bunch?

Hillary Clinton wants to give a $5000 bond to every U.S. baby.
2 white babies, 3 black babies, 1 chinese baby, perhaps 1 mexican baby, and ofcourse all U.S. taxpayers can be thankful that voters reject Clinton baby bond proposal by a 2-to-1 margin.

the poor little mexican is standing behind the black girl's 'fro.

I'm thinking about all the positive PR this picture is going to score me with the feel good socialist crowd.

P.S. Did anyone notice how they conveniently forgot to invite a Mexican kid?

Matty it must be something to do with a young bloke in a pink shirt, not looking at the camera but rather looking amused at your own thoughts.

that picture makes you look like you are preaching, or rather singing, the word of Christ, that or you are doing something with those kids you shouldn't be!
You didn't consider maybe both?

seems right to me. sure some some (ahem) 18 year olds are stupid but so are a lot of 50 year olds. If you don't care, don't vote.

Grace- Oh and Hillary's picture doesn't? My intentions appear to be far more pure in my humble opinion.

That picture makes you look like you are preaching, or rather singing, the word of Christ, that or you are doing something with those kids you shouldn't be!

My senior students told me in no uncertain terms that this was a bad idea, and they even thought 18 was too young.  Their reasoning being that they could not decide what to wear in the morning, never mind who should run the country.  They also thought that they would only vote for whoever their parents voted for as they were so inexperienced in political matters that they would trust that their parents were right, which they believed to be the wrong way to go about things.  It was a fairly interesting discussion of a topic I neither initiated or interfered with.

This would be why Bradford wanted to give the vote to 16 year olds no?

it is easy to 'brainwash' a person.  Many have a tendency to hear someone in authority as talking 'truths' rather than querying it.  It is not until people learn to question and research for themselves that this stops, and even then it is usually because they have had an experience that has proved the 'truth' to be in fact false.  Those young people who are lucky enough to have had 'authority figures' in their lives who encourage questioning and self-discovery are usually the ones who cannot have the wool pulled over their eyes.

By all means talk politics with your kid if he wants to talk politics, argue with him, go ahead. just don't brainwash him in to being exactly how you'd like him to be as soon as he pops out of the womb, that's all.

At 13, I regard Callum as a young adult. You can't really brainwash a 13 year old. Well...It would be more of a challenge. And from what I can tell Callum found his own way to Objectivism, that right Mr. McPetrie?

No socialists, no unions and no Apple computers.  

But seriously, my son is 12 and we talk a lot of politics. In our discussions I very often ask him questions and let him answer. About half the time I get a god awful socialist answer that starts with "If everyone would..." or worse "Everyone should..." but the other times I am proud because of some clever insights he offers that I did not hear of.

As our young Callum McPetrie proves. You don't need to be an adult to be an objectivist.

Now, please don't ask what I say when I get those awful socialist answers ok ;-) 

Carbon Tax is a hoax. Read more at carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

I'm definitely raising my child to be an Objectivist. By that, I mean, I behave like one, use reason to explain things to her, surround her with other Objectivist adults, and tell her what I think when I think it.

It's clearly to early for her to understand politics (4), but we do talk about how whoever owns something decides what happens to it. We don't allow force on other people. We try to work out our differences through reason. I bet when she is old enough for politics, it will be pretty easy.

Might she turn out to be a socialist? Possibly. Free will and all that. Do I think it likely that after a childhood full of reason and fun and self-awareness, she'll turn away from all that for irrationality? No.

Kelly

Good question,

I'm not saying I would force myself to remain neutral. If my kid ever asked what I thought about something I would tell them but I would try to lay out the basic facts around everything as well. When it came to something life and death like drinking poison I would take more of a 'THIS. IS. BAD.' approach. Something like smoking (was that what you were getting at?) that takes a hell of a long time to die from...well, make up your own mind. In fact if you don't want your kid to smoke, the younger he tries it the better. If a kid aged 5 tried a cigarette it would hurt so much it might hard wire him to detest smoking.

Your Nazism situation is trickier. My parents never told me explicitly Nazism was bad. They just talked to me when I asked a question and taught me the difference between basic right and wrong. I'm for that by the way. I don't view teaching your kid something very fundamental like not being hateful towards others as manipulating their mind. By the time my kid reached the age where they could contemplate Nazism I would hope I had just talked to my kid to the extent where they were smart enough to simply know that Nazism was bad. I wouldn't raise my kid to be a Libertarian or an Objectivist. For me, developing my own political opinions was a wonderful process and I wouldn't want to deprive my kid of that.

If you know a philosophy--say Nazism--to be wrong, indeed, evil, why wouldn't you lay the groundwork so your kids would recoil with a healthy disgust at the mere mention of it?

How is that any different to teaching your children that, say, certain chemicals are bad for their health?

It happens to be my number 1 rule if I do have kids. Nothing beyond 'don't play on the road' type things. I will not enforce politics or philosophies on my kid.

read the following...

Maybe one day we can live in a word where the standard approach to parenting is letting your kids grow up, look at the world around them and decide for themselves what they think. Maybe.

Will that apply to your own children?