How many of you would punish religious people for being religious?

[Ahriman]

Yeahhh you don't know that.

As I have said before... you can either be alive or dead...   200 years ago I wasn't alive, so I must have been dead, in another 200 years I will also be dead... why would one be different from the other?

Because you weren't "dead" 200 years ago, you just didn't exist yet.

[Belacqua]

There are atheists on the Internet who say that raising a child with religion is child abuse. 

Child abuse is illegal. 

So if they're serious in what they say, and not just talking shit for effect, then they advocate the involvement of the government (like Child Family Services) to intervene with, if not punish, religious parents.

Thinking that something is abusive and wrong and that no one should do it does not equal 'advocates making it a crime'.

There are people who think spanking is child abuse; but that doesn't imply that they think spanking should be illegal. It's just their opinion that spanking is child abuse, their opinion doesn't make it illegal. And it doesn't imply that they think it SHOULD be illegal...maybe they think the police state required to make sure no child in the country is ever spanked would be worse than the problem its aimed at solving. Maybe they think the issue should be addressed with education because they recognize that parenting is hard and the only model most people have to go by is how they were raised themselves and arresting people for swatting their kids is an overreaction under those circumstances. Maybe they think spanking, while unfortunate and wrong, is not a sufficient reason to separate a child from their parents, as would happen if it were illegal. Maybe, though they think children should never be spanked, they think only spankings over a certain level of severity should be addressed by the authorities, to discourage spankings without having to frequently separate children from their parents or implement a police state.

And none of those positions amounts to 'just talking shit for effect'.

I get what you're saying. Yes, "child abuse" is a judgment call, and people may use the term differently.

I guess for me, child abuse is by definition the point at which somebody should call the authorities. Child abuse is that which society should not tolerate. There is a lot of bad parenting which doesn't rise to the level of abuse, of course.

To put it another way, we might say "When does bad parenting rise to the level of child abuse?" "When it's time to call CPS."

But you're right that in non-legal discussions the term is used less strictly. Vegan parents may say that taking your kids to McDonald's constitutes child abuse, but the police wouldn't take that seriously. Or you might agree that it's child abuse, but it's a kind of abuse that society should tolerate.

And you're right that spanking may or may not be good parenting, but in most cases doesn't call for the involvement of the authorities. So again, for me, spanking is something I might disapprove of, but I wouldn't call abuse until it gets dangerously violent. 

So we can debate the nuance. To me, "child abuse" is that which society should not tolerate. So when people start saying that raising a child in religion is child abuse, this raises the possibility of involvement by the authorities, of an arm of the government that will prevent the parents from exercising their religious rights. But other people may use the term as hyperbole.

---

@Ahriman

Recently, as a way of insulting me, somebody pointed out that I've been misgendering you.

I apologize for getting it wrong.

[arewethereyet]

Thinking that something is abusive and wrong and that no one should do it does not equal 'advocates making it a crime'.

There are people who think spanking is child abuse; but that doesn't imply that they think spanking should be illegal. It's just their opinion that spanking is child abuse, their opinion doesn't make it illegal. And it doesn't imply that they think it SHOULD be illegal...maybe they think the police state required to make sure no child in the country is ever spanked would be worse than the problem its aimed at solving. Maybe they think the issue should be addressed with education because they recognize that parenting is hard and the only model most people have to go by is how they were raised themselves and arresting people for swatting their kids is an overreaction under those circumstances. Maybe they think spanking, while unfortunate and wrong, is not a sufficient reason to separate a child from their parents, as would happen if it were illegal. Maybe, though they think children should never be spanked, they think only spankings over a certain level of severity should be addressed by the authorities, to discourage spankings without having to frequently separate children from their parents or implement a police state.

And none of those positions amounts to 'just talking shit for effect'.

I get what you're saying. Yes, "child abuse" is a judgment call, and people may use the term differently.

I guess for me, child abuse is by definition the point at which somebody should call the authorities. Child abuse is that which society should not tolerate. There is a lot of bad parenting which doesn't rise to the level of abuse, of course.

To put it another way, we might say "When does bad parenting rise to the level of child abuse?" "When it's time to call CPS."

But you're right that in non-legal discussions the term is used less strictly. Vegan parents may say that taking your kids to McDonald's constitutes child abuse, but the police wouldn't take that seriously. Or you might agree that it's child abuse, but it's a kind of abuse that society should tolerate.

And you're right that spanking may or may not be good parenting, but in most cases doesn't call for the involvement of the authorities. So again, for me, spanking is something I might disapprove of, but I wouldn't call abuse until it gets dangerously violent. 

So we can debate the nuance. To me, "child abuse" is that which society should not tolerate. So when people start saying that raising a child in religion is child abuse, this raises the possibility of involvement by the authorities, of an arm of the government that will prevent the parents from exercising their religious rights. But other people may use the term as hyperbole.

---

@Ahriman

Recently, as a way of insulting me, somebody pointed out that I've been misgendering you.

I apologize for getting it wrong.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Just because someone is a philosopher or theologian, it doesn't follow that that makes them "wise".

They were foolish enough to believe in a god. I'm not impressed.

The concept of God meant a lot more back then than it does now.

Back then, people thought the Sun orbited the Earth. Didn't make those folk "wise". Even nowadays, I hold both theology and philosophy in suspicion, so their pursuits don't really impress me much. Euclid, Eratosthenes, and many others did a lot more with much less fluff and BS.

---

Yes, it means (bold) as well as physical punishment and torture.

I'm going to assume you're projecting your own desires as to how you'd treat people who disagree with you.

I'm a little more ethically developed than that, myself. I also am able to propound my ideas with words and not violence.

Now who is wiser?

---

Isn’t there a bridge you should be under?

Boru

His avatar says it all ... its a trollish thing from ten or twelve years ago.

[Foxaèr]

His avatar says it all ...  its a trollish thing from ten or twelve years ago.

Indeed. The avatar looked familiar to me, but I'm not one to report anything.

[HappySkeptic]

Has Ahrman changed his religious views? I don't remember him being a Christian Dominionist.

Mostly he is just a troll, and this is a troll topic.

[paulpablo]

I'd go as far as punishing the religion as harshly as it punishes non believers.

If they believe non believers deserve to die they deserve to die.  That goes the same way for people who believe gay people deserve to die or people who think certain races should die.

[Belacqua]

I'd go as far as punishing the religion as harshly as it punishes non believers.

If they believe non believers deserve to die they deserve to die.  That goes the same way for people who believe gay people deserve to die or people who think certain races should die.

So it's OK to kill people for their beliefs, as long as you're the one doing the killing.

[paulpablo]

I'd go as far as punishing the religion as harshly as it punishes non believers.

If they believe non believers deserve to die they deserve to die.  That goes the same way for people who believe gay people deserve to die or people who think certain races should die.

So it's OK to kill people for their beliefs, as long as you're the one doing the killing.

Sometimes.

[Belacqua]

So it's OK to kill people for their beliefs, as long as you're the one doing the killing.

Sometimes.

OK, so in answer to the question in the OP, you are in favor of punishing people for being religious, if it's a religion which you judge to be bad.