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

[softfruit]

Given the degree to which the other side of the argument press for (and sometimes win) laws to promote their position, it seems to me only right that there be legislative pushing on this side. I think of it a bit like a seesaw. you need similar weight on both ends, otherwise the "balanced" centre is liable to be somewhat askew.

In academic principle I'm in favour of an age of consent for religion*. In practice I know it's probably impossible to acheive from where we are now.

In a similar way I approve of the general existence of a group like Outrage on LG rights, even though I don't agree with every last word of their agenda, in that it presents a reasonably coherent alternative world view to the "homosexuality is a filthy sin, they can be cured by God" campaigners on the other side of that battle.

* free choice when old enough to make your own mind up, after all any god worthy of the name should be able to recruit followers from the adult population rather than need to be instilled on the very young etc.

[seika]

Hmmmm. But do we really want to be encouraging conservatives in thinking that legislation is the right way and that even we think so, and/or that if they don't get their laws up fast enough we might beat them to it with our liberal agenda and corrupt the world?

[softfruit]

That's not the place we are at though. "They*" are already working hard on extending those laws that they already have up, a very long way down that track, and are organised and committed around using new legislation as well as bending existing legislation around their agenda.

* a vocal and politically well-organised subset of members of certain religious groups, which it sometimes takes a lot of remembering are just a highly visible minority, like the balance of football thugs versus perfectly aimiable football fans.

Law Plus?

[fiat_knox]

What we really need is some form of social contract. A code of behaviour towards another which, while not a "law" in that it will involve police, courts, fines, prison etc., nevertheless outlines acceptable vs. unacceptable behaviours.

For example, sexually abusing a child - that is breaking the law. Cops, prison and rightly so. Vile. Murder - the same. Assaulting someone - the same.

Teaching children age four about hell? Sure, but it's ethically wrong and in breach of the social contract which outlines at what age children are allowed to be taught what subjects.

Suggestion for such a social contract:-

AgeSubject one can be taught
4Avoiding selfish behaviour (selfishness is wrong, share and share alike, play nice, be kind)
5Everything has its time, and everything dies. But death is something to look forward to after a happy life: it's what you do with your life that counts.
6People live in communities, and in those communities we know one another and look out for one another, helping out when we can.
7Some people find solace in

Re: Law Plus?

[seika]

Personally, I feel that religions should not be foisted upon children. They should stay clear of it until they're at least old enough to vote, and to choose for themselves as fully grown adults.I agree with this statement. I think it's okay to expose kids to the ideas and cultures of religions when they're little, like a culture festival or something; they can learn about them, but they shouldn't be encouraged to pick one until they're grown up

Re: Law Plus?

[eclective]

Poor, poor Luc. Talk about your bad religious upbringings... (Well, he probably wasn't actually indoctrinated with too much religion himself

Re: Law Plus?

[seika]

The age of accountability IIRC is... kind of low. Wikipedia gives ages as low as 7, which is actually the age I was taught. I don't think 7-year-olds, or even most 12-year-olds, really get the idea of religion yet. There are probably counterexamples, like the kid in The Life of Pi, but rare ones.

[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

[electrictroy999]

I
think
you don't
understand the
meaning of freedom.

Freedom means nothing if parents are not allowed to instill their children with the values they believe (whether those values are religious or communist or liberal). Stop dictating to your neighbors what they can or cannot teach. ----- If I sound angry, well, it's because I am. I don't want somebody telling ME what I'm allowed to teach in MY household. That is NONE of your business.

BTW I'm not even a religious person.
I'm an Atheist.

But I still support religious freedom. As Thomas Jefferson wisely stated, "Whether my neighbors worship one god, many gods, or no gods, matters not to me. Their actions do not harm my person, my property, nor my rights. I can not justly interfere with their liberties."

[heron61]

Your ideas are predicated on the idea that children are the property of their parents, which is an idea that I find not just distasteful, but deeply wrong. Someone having freedom to worship as they please is far from the same thing as having the freedom to do with their children as they will.

[electrictroy999]

And YOUR ideas are predicated on the notion that children are the property of government, and that gov't should decide.

I find that even more horrible (as if we could trust politicians like Obama or McCain to raise our children).

I'd rather have children in the hands of their parents (who gave birth to them & pay their bills & spend tons of time with them & get to know each child individually)..... then in the hands of some bozo in D.C. who only cares about his next reelection.

[electrictroy999]

P.S. In addition to being Atheist, I am also Jeffersonian. I believe people should be able to run their own lives & do whatever they with to do, insofar as they do not cause physical harm to others.

Instructing children, even if it's something as disgusting as making them read the Collected Works of Joseph Stalin the Exterminator, is something that I have absolutely NO RIGHT to interfere with.

It's none of my business.

The world is filled with ideas, and everyone has a right to share their ideas with everybody else, including their own children. I may not agree with those ideas, but that's not justification for me to take away other people's Right to Free Speech.

[luinied]

First, I'd like to say that it's very nice to know that you think about the distinction between being seriously against anyone doing something and supporting a law against that thing, because a lot of people don't. And, while it is quite scary when people do this in my own country, I can always hold on to the fact that we have some - maybe not as many as we should - protections against this sort of thing written into our constitution, and while said constitution may be railroaded over for a while and the courts may be stuffed with "strict constructionist" judges, most of the exceedingly troubling (in these ways, anyway) laws will run afoul with the Bill of Rights eventually. It's scarier when I think about this happening elsewhere, where such protections may not exist, which, as far as I know, is the case in the UK

[luinied]

Oh, and a thing I was going to mention but forgot: I also think it's very important to remember the difference between being against something and being for a law against it because I've seen far too much of "either you want to ban foo or you should just keep your mouth shut about it", as used in either direction and most frustratingly sometimes used by people on themselves. And not only is that totally a false dichotomy, but it ignores the fact that the range between silence and calling for a ban contains some very useful levels of social pressure that it's extremely appropriate to use against in situations like this.

The most frustrating example of this I've seen would be relatively mainstream liberal-leaning Christians from the Midwest, who in private will express their disgust with the religious right but would never dare to go beyond private murmurings of discontent. But perhaps this is only the most frustrating to me because of how often I've seen it happen.

[electrictroy999]

Well to those people the world is black-and-white, but in reality the world is gray. When people present me with statements such as, "Either you do this, or you are against us," I always offer other choices:

"False. Those are not my only choices. I also have the option to do this, that, or the next thing. I choose option ___." That usually leaves them speechless, because they realize you are right. There ARE multiple choices.

re: rights

- Everybody owns their body.
- Everybody owns the product of their body's labor
---- Example: a chair you just hand-built is yours.
---- Or money you collected when you sell your labor; that too is yours.

If someone takes your labor or property w/o payment (i.e. slavery), then they have violated your rights. And they have violated your body. It is morally repugnant.

[eclective]

First, I'd like to say that it's very nice to know that you think about the distinction between being seriously against anyone doing something and supporting a law against that thing, because a lot of people don't.

To be fair, I've only just really started to consider it, and I feel like I should have thought about it a lot sooner. But we can only think of these things when we think of them, I suppose. And I am glad that I've thought about it now.