Child abuse ?

[Something completely different]

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.

Raising ones kid indoctrenating it into believing in creationism and rejecting those outside of it`s sect is stupid.

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?

You are nitpicking - half of Europe has the constitutional monarchy - non of them are dictatorships - but have democraticly elected goverments.

The head of state in such a case has no other function is to sign the bills and amuse the public.

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.

You are absolutly not getting the point! I have nothing against a child being brought up with the religion of it`s parents aslong as the religion is bound within the framework of democracy and done at home.

I reject the raising a child by indoctrinating it with violent intolerant views and by teaching it pseudoscience at school!

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.

At any rate. I did say that. But probably because I forgot that such a special case might exist.

And I have checked, german law makes an exception for disabled kids, but the curriculum is given by the ministry of education and the kid has to do a test once a year - which is handed out and controlled by the state.

Your other point is complet nonsence, only because facts constantly change due to scientific and sociatal progress, this doesnt mean that we shouldnt teach current facts, one might aswell stop teaching at all.

I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense. So many children can't be integrated into society and that is not abuse.

examples?

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.

reject of scientific institutions
radicalisation of political views
intolerance

I am someone who sees sociaty as a big diverse network in flux under constantly changing influences. In which something is never the result of one reason but of several.
I do believe that the homeschooling movement greatly contributed to right wing ignorance in your country.

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.

I know 70-80 year olds who still think a russian-jewish conspiracy controls the world. My own grandfather thought so.
Dont underestemate the power indoctrination has on a child.
It is abuse, because you can create a monster.

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.

And if this book says: the earth is 8000 years old, a woman is a cursed and wicked being, a homosexual should be put to death?
Most probably wont abide to such bronze age calls for execution.
But they will certainly have memorised these things as "moral values"
And it is eaven worse if they are told that these things are infalible, since they conflict with modern values on every base.

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.

A democracy is a pluralistic sociaty - therefor a schoolsystem and general education representing it`s values doesnt raise robots.

I dont know much about the legal obligations, actualy I should rephrase it into "social obligation"

Scientists do not define knowledge, nor are they the only purveyors of knowledge.

They might not be the only ones looking for knowlege.
But you will have to explain the "not defineing part", since finding knowlege and broadening mankinds horizon is practicaly their job.

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.

The earth is a 100 million year old rock traveling at 67000 miles per hour arround a field, created by the interactions between the gravitational forces of the sun and planets and held together by the centrifugal force, called the Barry field. In a expanding universe. - that is knowlege that should be taught at school.

The earth is the 8000 year old center of the universe on which creatures all at once created by god, await their doom and judgement by that god. - simply a lie and therefor not knowlege and therefor shouldnt be tought to kids as being the truth in school.

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

I dont have a problem with people going to church or celebrating christmans and doing other things which can be peacefully practiced within a tolerant pluralistic sociaty without discriminating others.
I have a problem with what i mentioned above.

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.

what has the thought police accusation got to do with this?

And there is no limit to what parents can teach their children - but school education shouldnt be defined by a kids parents views.

I never claimed to have the right to define what is knowlege and what is not - or better put: what should be tought to kids and what not.
theres a field of professionals managing this. pedagogy.

Really? You are calling my argument immature? The guy who is trying to restrict what parents can teach their kids about their respective religions?

I havent tried anything sofar. I live in a country in which homeschooling is forbidden - because schooling means to be taught facts - not nonsence.
What religion they get served at home (as long as it doesnt conflict with the rest of sociaty) is non of my concern.

You are being as bad, if not worse, than most Christians.

where and how?

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.

I dont quelch ideas, I protect myself from those who think I dont eaven have the liberty to have ideas.

Orwell? I am strictly talking and arguing about the educational sector!
As long as someone doesnt brutaly cut of the clitoris of his minor daughter or something like that, I have no problem with people practicing their religion in peace and in respective tolerants towards other members of sociaty.

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 am interested in arguments. I dont want to control anything here.
But I will not answere someone who will think that emotional statements are a legit argument and who only seems to want to get a kick out of this for herself.

I argue to educate myself, I am convinced by the more reasonable and logical argument and then acknowlege the failure of the other one one.

And I am eaven less interested in your sence of "humor" when it is based on insulting stereotyps