Steel,

I'll get back to it. No time right now.

Religious teaching doesn't have to be child abuse - ultimately, religious people would argue that becaue they believe they're right, that non-religious teaching is a denial of god's connection, and is 'abuse' as well.

Which leads to the religion-v-non-religion circle.

A few points though - boaz, I'd also like you to state your posts in relation to god and Islam are merely opinion. I understand your desire to tone down Steel's rather vehement post, but given how often you pop up with religious tracts which you then claim as fact, I can't help but feel that the kettle just got rather irate at the pot for being too black.

What made me giggle was this particular post, boaz: "Islam teaches people are born sinless. This rather appeals to the shallow sentimental mind, but is theologically flawed.""

1) Theologically flawed: translation: in the fairy tale rules I've decided apply to reality, this doesn't fit. Therefore, it is wrong.

I find the idea of a sinful newborn to be... well, I was going to say 'shallow and sentimental', but I think 'repugnant' is more apt. The 'Islamic' notion people are born sinful makes perfect sense.

If sin is a product of our actions, the most basic reasoning would indicate that a newborn baby, which has not had the chance to make any actions of significance, is therefore, without sin.

The only way it can be 'theologically flawed' is if your idea of theology requires a mindset where we start out bad. As theology in the most literal sense is no more than a study of religions, if a religion decides that this ugly 'guilty until redeemed' isn't necessary, then by clear logic, it can only be theologically flawed if you are trapped in that mindset, as not all religions/theologies fit that mould.

And you, boaz, claim to be some kind of expert in theology. What unadulterated bull. I know that sounds harsh and dismissive, but don't you dare claim that a proposition is 'theologically flawed' when it's very clearly only possible to make that statement from a hopelessly biased, dismissive, highanded standpoint.

MrRight.>"It could be years before any effects will appear in the children photographed."

What effects? Some of these models have been subjects of Henson's for 25 years already. Didn't you know? This is also a random hypothesis that appeals to fear. I could as easily make up a random hypothesis to assert she will gain 50 IQ points in 1 years time.

MrRight>"However, in South Australia at least, if teachers, doctors, social workers and any public servant dealing with children got wind of the fact that a child was to be photographed,or had been photographed naked, they are legally obliged to report to police that the child is ‘at risk'."

How sad. Talk about hysteria. Now your ignorance and blindness is showing (this includes the policy writers in the South Australian government). There are numerous circumstances in which some beautiful photographs of children could be made as a celebration of humanity (or a darker documentation of it). I guess all those aid workers and photographers were reported for putting starving naked african children "at risk"? Families taking pictures of their children at play? Are the children "at risk"? Are the neighbours to look over the fence and report them like communists or fascists and public 'informants'/secret state police did 50 years ago in communist states? That is what is being demanded by this law and it easily splits your bigoted reactionary opinion apart. You are oppressing the majority over fear of an infintessimally small minority, and bringing citizen and state spying into law.

TLTR, this isn't an intellectual exercise to be debated one way or another. It is an observation of some actual facts that are happening to children now. If your definition of abuse includes physically harming a child, then you must conclude the religious promotion of circumcision child abuse/harm. If your definition of abuse includes the shaming of children for mythological reasons (such as most believe with scientology), then you must conclude child harm/abuse has taken place. Pelican has shown he had some level of understanding my post, so how about you actually think about the children in those videos and links i have provided in this thread?

Can you seriously tell me that these children in those videos are developing normally? Can you seriously tell me that threatening them with eternal suffering and saying they are sinners does not disrupt the normal development of their emotions and self-identity/esteem? Circumcision is also a religious promotion and that mutilation is incredible pain and suffering is inflicted wihtout any consent onto the child. The damage is permanent also.

Steel - any extremities of religious teaching is abuse. Regrettably the machine I'm on now is incapable of playing youtube clips, so I cannot view the video, but I'll assume it is an ugly display of religious indoctrination upon children. I've no truck with that and you'll not find my defence of religious teaching particularly vociferous.

I guess my point is that ultimately, were I to criticise all religious teaching as being abusive, I'd feel it would be akin to boaz's harping on about how Islam in its entirety is evil.

Moderate teachings of any persuasion are fine. Regrettably, few teachers in such loaded subjects, be they politics or religion, distinguish between their view, and what is right. Some do, and they are the best of the lot.

I totally agree that teachers who scare children with tales of burning hellfire are stepping across that line. It's ugly. It's wrong. I'd even concur it's abusive.

But not all religious teachers are like that. I went to a christian school for many years as a high schooler, and a different one for several months when I was very young. Neither of those schools used the 'hell and damnation' approach.
It was all Love and Christ and isn't Jesus great? sort of stuff. Didn't really appeal to me, and it didn't take, but none of it was 'abusive.'

So I guess my final observation is that yes, religious teaching can be abusive, but it doesn't have to be.

Steele

'Then there are the religious circumcisions, that mutilate and violate thousands of children every year across the world without their consent.

Under secular humanism the child is likely to be mutilated in the mother's womb before it even has a chance to be abused. If anyone had any doubts about the adamic nature you are sure proof of it. The results of your philosophy leads to sick minded artists being defended even when producing child porn. I could see thousands of parents wanting you to brainwash their kids with your deceitful representation of God. Your free (perverted) thinking is a sure way to hell.