Hellfire preaching: is there a right solution?

[eclective]

So a petition went up recently on the 10 Downing Street website, associated with a site called Stop The Nightmares. (You can Google those things if you're looking for it: I was going to post the link, but now that I've thought about it more, I don't want to encourage people to impulse-click.) I feel very strongly about what it's petitioning against

Comments

[terra]

Okay, first: my opinions of fire and brimstone as it relates to Protestant theology, let me show you them. My feeling is that it's never really been an effective conversion tool in the mode of REPENT SINNERS, rather the realization that you are as NOTHING before G-d and that sense of awe and humility that's been an essential part of the doctrine since the beginning. I'm kinda of the opinion you can't just throw it out

[eclective]

Again, hmm, I'm personally trying to draw a big distinction here between raising your kid religious and telling a four-year-old "if you're not a good little girl/boy, you'll go to a place where they torture you eternally" over and over again. The former is a complex issue, and I do personally believe that a) we can separate moral principles from religion when teaching children (i.e. one can say "don't hurt other people, it's wrong" without saying "if you hurt other people you'll go to hell" - shouldn't we be teaching why it's wrong, as in, it takes away the happiness of others, reduces their life quality, etc., rather than simply threatening a punishment and making it all about costs and benefits, all about a person's selfish desire to avoid pain and gain gratification?), and b) one can practice one's own religion in one's home without saying to a child "you must be X", but that's not so much my issue. But I have a lot less of a problem with parents teaching their children to be religious than parents putting so much emphasis on the

[seika]

But I have a lot less of a problem with parents teaching their children to be religious than parents putting so much emphasis on the fire and the brimstone that children suffer from nightmares and horrible existential fears. (A lot of children may not inherit the religion of their parents, true, but a lot of them who were subjected to extremely heavy-handed religious views also take a long time getting over it and do suffer emotionally, even if they eventually learn to choose their own path. Again, it's not the religion but the way it's taught.)

Although I agree with fiatknox's point that children shouldn't be asked to have a religion until they're old enough to understand it, I also don't have so much of a huge problem with it as I do with the method of teaching that scares kids-- and adults, too, really, because then they can't get over that fear later

[terra]

Honestly? Hell is for the faithful-- les miracles ne se servent pas a convertir, mais a condemner. I'm not suggesting the threat of damnation be used as a conversion tool-- it makes for poor converts. Religion isn't a child's concept, it's more a vast intellectual and literary tradition that has intrinsic value like all art and philosophy. And that's why most religions have coming-of-age ceremonies-- because they want their believers to understand what they are getting into.

As for instilling a sense of awe and humility, hm, can't that be done through a lot of more positive means, though? Just the idea that, say, you're this tiny human on a massive planet, look at the size of the solar system, look at the size of the universe, look at how fragile you are physically, how often you think selfish things or hurtful things, etc., but God still loves you personally. Isn't that idea just as awe-instilling and humbling? Same with a mountain vista or a sunset, the experience of the sublime - the vastness of nature that impresses on us how

[seika]

If a child is being abused, then a child is being abused, and religion can't do anything to change that.

But the converse is not necessarily true: If a child is not being abused, then religion can do something to change that. Well-meaning people do sometimes end up scaring children because they think it's good for them.

[terra]

If a child is not being abused, then religion can do something to change that.

Yeah, but you can place any number of (potentially wonderful) things there instead of "religion" and that sentence would still be true. Maybe "fear" wouldn't be the operating downfall, but then again, there are plenty of things to be afraid of besides God. I mean, the old fairy tales are filled with horrible deaths for children who step out of line. It's not a principle exclusive of or characteristic of religion. (And by characteristic of here, I mean it's possible to take a kid to Sunday school and have Christmas holidays and not control him/her with fear. Obviously there are specifically religious terrors, but I know a girl who was raised strictly atheist and was basically told that if she was interested in any sort of religion whatsoever she was a stupid irrational slug of a thing, sooo.)

[seika]

Well, I think the whole point of the petition is to stop people using religion to scare/abuse children, not to stop people from taking a kid to Sunday school and have Christmas holidays if they're not controlling him/her with fear.

[eclective]

Yeah, this, pretty much. The problem is that things that the courts would otherwise see as abusive get a lot more leeway if there's religion involved, so it isn't just that child abuse is child abuse and the courts should see that, because they don't, so much; there are biases when it comes to religion. And the idea is that we want people to see that whether it's religious or secular or what, child abuse is equally Not Okay; not to ban specific religious practices but to say, "hey, if this is hurting a child it's bad, even if religion is involved".

[terra]

I understand that, but having a law that says, "Controlling children with fear is wrong" and having a law that says "controlling children with religious fear is wrong" is redundant. (And to reiterate, sets a really dangerous precedent.) If you need both, the problem isn't with the law but the way it's enforced. And frankly I don't know if there are all these court biases in favor of religion, I haven't seen any evidence of that. (Haven't looked either, so there very well might be.) Part of it is that growing up, and in the environment I live in now, there was a perceptible bias against religion.

Another problem with such a law is that it kind of gives the religious right more fuel for their persecution fire, which isn't something I particularly desire. Though not doing the right thing because you're afraid of how other people would react is silly.

[seika]

It's not necessarily a good idea to make this law, and I think eclective has already recognised that, but I do think that the matter deserves some social attention, in that people seem to be getting away with something just because it's linked to religion, and they should not have that free pass. Calling attention to the fact that it is a huge problem might help, so that people are generally more aware that this happens and less likely to let it fly as an excuse in court.

[eclective]

I do agree, it definitely shouldn't be used as a conversion tool, but some people do, regardless. I definitely agree with your view of how religion should be used, it's just that not everyone follows that; basically, I think the issue is that in the cases where it is clearly child abuse, and would be seen as abusive if it weren't couched in religious terms, it's allowed to slide because it's religion, and that's the prickly point. And again, I'm not really sure what we should do about it, but it is a problem, that people can be hurtful in the name of religion and protected by that whereas if it weren't framed in those terms, it would be an offence.

If it were the same, you obviously wouldn't have a problem with the one and not the other.Well, I think they are the same except for that one involves a lot of fear and negativity as well, basically. I think one can have awe and humility without fear and negativity, or at least fear and negativity to that extent; there's always a little fear involved in the contemplation of the sublime,

[terra]

I guess my point is that the fear is an essential and powerful part of it, and cutting that out cheapens and sterilizes the doctrine. But I was never talking about children, here, this isn't a concept I think most college-educated don't adults readily understand and/or grasp. (Same category as predestination.) Just saying, hey, this is an essential historical element of the creed, it has value same as any philosophical currency