Child abuse ?

[Shell B]

I didnt call you dumb!, and I have oftern acknowleged that I make spelling mistakes - and eaven greatfully accepted corrections by other participants of this forum.

I know you didn't call me dumb. You're calling Christians dumb. I'm an atheist.

I use other forums aswell as I write alot on word - so my spellcheck is always set on german language. If you can converse in perfect german - go ahead.

I'm not on a German-speaking forum. I normally wouldn't give a flying fuck and would even commend you for your use of words, despite your spelling. However, you are ranting about how stupid Christians are while hacking it up, so I'm finding myself amused.

If "teaching them their religion" includes teaching them a biggoted worldview, rejection of democracy, pseudoscience and a discriminatory view of others - it is abuse.

Wait, so rejection of democracy is also a problem? So, it is abuse if parents teach their kids that a Constitutional Republic is the way to go?

If you think this only means "thinking" then you are wrong, it might aswell lead to violence and attempt to force their views on others.

Ah, but it only does it in the most extreme of cases and the most extreme of religions. Millions (if not billions) of Muslims refrain from hurting people, despite being part of a so-called religion of violence. A child raised by atheist parents can go on to kill. So, is it abuse to "teach" atheism? A lack of god means a lack of supernatural punishment, as so many Christians like to point out.

No, I would deny it being tought nonsence. Which is my point!

You said you were against homeschooling. At any rate, children are taught nonsense as facts evolve all the time. It used to be that children were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. Were they all abused or is it just the religions you don't like that are the problem? Seems like you're entering this with complete and utter bias.

I will rephrase into: Not assuring that your child is a integrated member of the sociaty it lives in, is abuse.

I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense. So many children can't be integrated into society and that is not abuse. It is just unfortunate. Plenty of children are raised under the shadow of religion and integrate just fine. You have to make an argument that shows the result is a constant to call it abuse. A child who is beaten will always feel pain or at least suffer minimal tissue damage. The same goes fora child who is raped. An emotionally abused child will suffer emotional agonies. Now, you might say religion does that, but not by default. Calling your kid a god-hating fag is emotional abuse by our laws at this time anyway. Telling your child that homosexuals are not beloved of god is not. The former is abuse. The latter is teaching what is in a book. It's not even a fine line. It's not huge, but it's obvious.

A parent has the obligation to raise it`s child to be a integrated member of sociaty - if it does not it failes this obligation.
If it deliberatly teaches them nonsence it is abusing it`s parental commitment - therefor abusing the child.

Nope, nope and nope. A parent has many obligations. That is not one of them. Actually, a parent really has no obligations. Parents just up and abandon their spawn all the time. However, even the obligations under the law do not include raising an integrated member of society. We're not robots. I don't have to raise an automaton.

Write dictonaries? What?! Do you have an idea who we have and got to have, what we call knowlege?

Scientists do not define knowledge, nor are they the only purveyors of knowledge. I'm not sure we are meeting up with the term knowledge here. Knowledge is just stuff that you know. It can be fucking anything. I know that my table is wood. I know that dog farts smell funny. A scientists did not pop his head in the first time my first dog farted and tell me that.

What is the "ins and outs" of a religion?

Their teachings. In most cases, what is in a holy book and expected traditions.

So why should parents then be the teachers of their kids, eaven if they teach them nonsence?

Because they are their parents, firstly. Secondly, because you don't get to decide what is nonsense. You do not get to be the thought police. You do not get to hinder society by limiting that which adults can teach their children within reason.

Or was that the maturest argument you could give?

Really? You are calling my argument immature? The guy who is trying to restrict what parents can teach their kids about their respective religions? You are being as bad, if not worse, than most Christians. The worst part is that you think you are standing on some moral pedestal. I sincerely loathe when extremists take their moral ideals to some polar, but equally distasteful, opposite as their "foe."

I cant stand it when people answere in emotional hogwash phrases and believe this to be a valid argument.

Who said it was an argument? You are like something out of a fucking Orwell novel and you call me being frightened that people like you exist hogwash? It's not an argument, nor is it hogwash. It is a statement of fact that people like you who quelch ideas and try to control families that do not need your interference scare me. That you are from a different country is a comfort.

If you cant deliver facts to back up a rejection of an argument, dont answere.

Now you're trying to control who can answer what in this thread and how? I know there is a German joke in there somewhere. I'm just not sure if I am tasteless enough to make it, given that you're one in quite a few and I am 100% positive that your elitist beliefs do not extend to all of your countrymen. Still, I'm giggling a little. On the inside.

---

I'm just saying that the dictionaries are the end-all be-all of words. They report usage, which is why they change every year. So, no one "decides" what the definition of "knowledge" is. It's decided by the people who speak that language.

Well, the latter half of that statement is quite accurate and not all dictionaries are accurate. However, as a rule, dictionaries are typically more accurate in terms of widespread usage than people on this forum. Furthermore, it is easier to converse if one agrees to use certain definitions or dictionaries with his or her partner in conversation.

I was being more accurate in saying that people who write dictionaries decide it. Scientists certainly do not define terms, unless they create them, which is something they often do.