Maybe next time actually make a point instead of leading with an obviously loaded question that implies a position you've yet to state.
I'm not sure leading with a question is an invitation for you to invent a position for me. If you'd like to go back and answer the question rather than try to guess what I think about other questions, go right ahead.
I'm not sure I would constitute it as abuse unless you repeat it often and forcefully and as extremely as you have.
Well, just look at the questions Tiax and I posed. How do you explain these adult concepts to kids who may not be good at understanding them? How do you explain social norms in a way kids will understand?
Don't atheists usually defer to harm? That things that hurt others are generally considered bad? Maybe a bit simplistic, but you don't teach math to children starting at trigonometry.
Quote from Jay13x »
This is absolutely true, but then we should be having a different argument about what constitutes indoctrination, and is indoctrinating your children abuse.
To tell you the truth, I'm not the world's greatest debater or thinker, but I think this was the underlying question I was trying to get at. Is indoctrination bad? Is indoctrination required to teach religion to children? If so, is it abuse?
I'm not sure I would constitute it as abuse unless you repeat it often and forcefully and as extremely as you have.
So if you were to take your child to a church whose preacher uses the fire-and-brimstone style of sermon, that would constitute abuse in your book? Extreme and graphic depictions of hell are a common tool for the preachers of some popular denominations, and they often highlight the ease with which one can be sent there.
Don't atheists usually defer to harm? That things that hurt others are generally considered bad? Maybe a bit simplistic, but you don't teach math to children starting at trigonometry.
Yeah, and that's what I (will )do. The Christian Golden Rule is a great one for teaching morality, even if I don't believe in Christianity. I should note this is an odd position for me to argue, as I'm an agnostic atheist. But my 'Angry Athiest' days are behind me, even if I like to take potshots every now and then.
To tell you the truth, I'm not the world's greatest debater or thinker, but I think this was the underlying question I was trying to get at. Is indoctrination bad? Is indoctrination required to teach religion to children? If so, is it abuse?
Indoctrination is how we teach our children. That's what schools are. That's what parenting is. So it's a challenging question to answer. I thought about this a LOT back in the day, and I couldn't come up with a good reason why religion, by itself, is any worse than any other belief we instill in our children.
So if you were to take your child to a church whose preacher uses the fire-and-brimstone style of sermon, that would constitute abuse in your book? Extreme and graphic depictions of hell are a common tool for the preachers of some popular denominations, and they often highlight the ease with which one can be sent there.
It entirely depends on exactly what is being said. I stated earlier in the thread that extreme beliefs can constitute abuse when they create environments that hide abuse.
If it's the extreme version you're talking about, I wouldn't consider it any different than constantly threatening your child.
The preacher spends 20 minutes giving graphic descriptions of the fires of hell and telling the audience how easy it is to end up there. Is taking your child to this church abuse?
The preacher spends 20 minutes giving graphic descriptions of the fires of hell and telling the audience how easy it is to end up there. Is taking your child to this church abuse?
Yeah, not only because of that, but because extremist environments like this are rampant with abuse in a lot of other ways.
This is a challenging question though: Is merely scaring your children abuse? I consider this kind of extremist belief to be abuse, by in another context it might not be.
Yeah, not only because of that, but because extremist environments like this are rampant with abuse in a lot of other ways.
Well, of course if there's some other kind of abuse going on, then it's abuse regardless of the hellfire sermons. So let's leave that out of it, and imagine that the only potential source of abuse here is the content and nature of the sermons.
Let's ease up a little now, and consider Catholic churches, which often don't feature that charismatic style, but still feature a the threat of hell as a real and pressing danger. Consider this Catholic sermon, whose content is quite similar to the previous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4_GCGP51YQ
Don't atheists usually defer to harm? That things that hurt others are generally considered bad? Maybe a bit simplistic, but you don't teach math to children starting at trigonometry.
Yeah, and that's what I (will )do. The Christian Golden Rule is a great one for teaching morality, even if I don't believe in Christianity. I should note this is an odd position for me to argue, as I'm an agnostic atheist. But my 'Angry Athiest' days are behind me, even if I like to take potshots every now and then.
You and I are very similar in this regard. I just think the ideas like "The Golden Rule" are human instincts/feelings/impulses/whatever you want to call it before they're religious values. Most people have an innate concept of harm before they ever identify with a religion.
Quote from Jay13x »
Indoctrination is how we teach our children. That's what schools are. That's what parenting is. So it's a challenging question to answer. I thought about this a LOT back in the day, and I couldn't come up with a good reason why religion, by itself, is any worse than any other belief we instill in our children.
Indoctrination has a quality of unquestioned authority, I think. As a soon to be educator, I don't think teachers typically go through their careers expecting children to not ask questions. I mean, there is certainly an element of "because I said so" inherent to parenting, but I don't think that's the sum total.
Okay so Tiax, I don't consider that abuse because content versus delivery is really important. Tell your kid 'Everyone dies at some point' is very different from telling your kid "YOU'RE GOING TO DIE" (for example).
Nodrog, you're right that school isn't much like that any more, but it hasn't always been the case. My parents' schooling was much more indoctrinating than our own. And remember, we have the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of every school day in the US. We don't even think about it anymore, but that's a separate issue.
Okay so Tiax, I don't consider that abuse because content versus delivery is really important. Tell your kid 'Everyone dies at some point' is very different from telling your kid "YOU'RE GOING TO DIE" (for example).
I see, so if the first preacher said the exact same words but in the calm voice of the second preacher, that would no longer be abuse in your book?
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to me that what's important is the content. If the message is fundamentally damaging to the child, then it doesn't matter if you say it calmly.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to me that what's important is the content. If the message is fundamentally damaging to the child, then it doesn't matter if you say it calmly.
Think about child psychology. When a kid is dead set on doing something, what stops them in their tracks? A calm, dispassionate 'no', or a yell?
Think about child psychology. When a kid is dead set on doing something, what stops them in their tracks? A calm, dispassionate 'no', or a yell?
But certainly the mere act of yelling is not abuse? Taking a child to a sermon where the preacher is yelling about how much jesus loves you is very different from a sermon where the preacher is yelling about how terrible hell is going to be. It's the content that matters, not the yelling.
But certainly the mere act of yelling is not abuse? Taking a child to a sermon where the preacher is yelling about how much jesus loves you is very different from a sermon where the preacher is yelling about how terrible hell is going to be. It's the content that matters, not the yelling.
If you scream angrily at a kid all the time about how much you love them, I guarantee they'll have issues.
Sure, the content matters, but not so much to a kid who has tuned that crap out already. Having been raised Catholic, and gone through those sermons, they just rolled off me and I imagine many of the other kids. If my priest had been screaming at us about it, it would have affected me more more.
It's how the kids are treated regarding the religion that's important, in my opinion.
This is absolutely true, but then we should be having a different argument about what constitutes indoctrination, and is indoctrinating your children abuse.
"The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:
* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."
Is indoctrination child abuse? I don't think according to this definition it is necessarily, although of course there could be overlap between the two in the methods of indoctrination, but I do believe it's definitely bad parenting.
If you scream angrily at a kid all the time about how much you love them, I guarantee they'll have issues.
Sure, the content matters, but not so much to a kid who has tuned that crap out already. Having been raised Catholic, and gone through those sermons, they just rolled off me and I imagine many of the other kids. If my priest had been screaming at us about it, it would have affected me more more.
It's how the kids are treated regarding the religion that's important, in my opinion.
A change in volume doesn't alter the message. Yes, many kids will be able to cope with the imagery and implications of hellfire sermons, but it's also true that many kids are able to cope with and handle the effects of verbal or physical abuse. That doesn't change whether or not it's abuse.
When u get to the extremes yes religion is abuse, many of my aunts and uncles r catholic and one of my cousins is gay, he is so mentally ****ed up b/c of the religious beliefs against a gays it's not even funny. Stuff like that can make religious abusive.
I have a co-worker who said I would burn in hell b/c I'm atheist, lol. Teaching children this way is not only bad for them but for those around them.
Abstinence or refusing to teach children about sex, std's, protection etc is abusive also. It can cause teen pregnancy, catching deadly std's changing their lives forever.
It can also go the other way around where atheist can be just has judgement to the religious.
I am atheist but I believe it is our duty as parents to educate out children about as much stuff as possible meaning multiple religions, cultures, life etc regardless of ur beliefs.
A change in volume doesn't alter the message. Yes, many kids will be able to cope with the imagery and implications of hellfire sermons, but it's also true that many kids are able to cope with and handle the effects of verbal or physical abuse. That doesn't change whether or not it's abuse.
Well sure, being able to cope doesn't change what's abuse. That's fair.
But if you're so sure that volume doesn't change the effect of the message, why is raising your voice so effective in getting a kid to do something?
Is indoctrination child abuse? I don't think according to this definition it is necessarily, although of course there could be overlap between the two in the methods of indoctrination, but I do believe it's definitely bad parenting.
It could possibly be filed under emotional abuse, I guess.
Well sure, being able to cope doesn't change what's abuse. That's fair.
But if you're so sure that volume doesn't change the effect of the message, why is raising your voice so effective in getting a kid to do something?
A change in volume may change the effect of the message, but it doesn't change the message itself. If the message itself is abusive, it doesn't matter whether you yell it or whisper it. Telling your kid you hate them is abusive even if you say it in a nice, calm voice. Telling your kid that they're going to roast in hell if they don't believe what you want them to is abusive whether the priest yells it or says it solemnly.
A change in volume may change the effect of the message, but it doesn't change the message itself. If the message itself is abusive, it doesn't matter whether you yell it or whisper it. Telling your kid you hate them is abusive even if you say it in a nice, calm voice. Telling your kid that they're going to roast in hell if they don't believe what you want them to is abusive whether the priest yells it or says it solemnly.
Honestly, I think all of this comes down to the home environment. It doesn't matter all that much what your kid is exposed to in the world IF they have a loving, supportive home environment. So that's really got to be my caveat here.
Honestly, I think all of this comes down to the home environment. It doesn't matter all that much what your kid is exposed to in the world IF they have a loving, supportive home environment. So that's really got to be my caveat here.
So something stops being abuse if it's balanced out by a loving home environment? That makes zero sense.
How is raising children with religion any worse than being raised with anything else? I was raised in a progressive, Jewish, vegetarian family. I strongly doubt that I'd be progressive, Jewish, or vegetarian if I'd been raised in a conservative Chrisitan family that regularly ate meat. So why is it any worse for parents to raise kids to follow their own religious believes than it is for parents to raise kids to follow their own moral and political beliefs?
So something stops being abuse if it's balanced out by a loving home environment? That makes zero sense.
It makes perfect sense.
You complain that it "doesn't change the message itself". But the messages young children receive are those of emotional context, not the finer points of doctrine. Tell children that God loves them unconditionally, show the children that their parents love them unconditionally, and they'll probably not be unduly troubled by what the Catechism has to say about Hell. But give children an angry, capricious God and angry, capricious parents, and the situation changes. The problem is emotional abuse, not religious dogma. (Dogma only becomes a problem when it starts to **** up their education with counter-scientific theories and anti-intellectual attitudes.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Dawkins has his own way of thinking, like that atheist don't cause wars, religions do. That communism was a form of religion and ect.
The problem with homosexuality and atheism within the church "big picture" with the shunning, harassment, and bigotry shown to people by religion tends to be the worst of the religion. But that is also a part of bullying, harassment, and is a form of abuse through social rejection during teenage years. Especially whenever we as a country have extended unnecessarily the child rearing years and dependency of a particular person to sometimes their mid to late 20's. Which is ludicrous.
No, raising your "kid a certain religion" isn't, it's how you react whenever the kid rejects the religion early or later on that is. Whenever we can separate those two factors, we engage in a "better debate." Dawkins has serious issues with religion, but I still have serious issues with Dawkins. "Why do this it's a waste of time? It causes war!" seems to be a big part of his morality and historical interpretation. Which is a form of polemics, and I don't like polemics in general because I find it to be an annoyance to debate. Like that one kid in college that thinks they know everything and you're-an-idiot-everything-I-say-is-true.
The basic defense is that wars tend to be multifaceted and use economics or religion or territorial integrity as a pretext for war based on culturally transmitted norms and the typical communications of the age. With that said, treating atheists badly is indefensible just like homosexuals. Religion has been around for thousands of years as a socializing and morality tool and has been combined with different philosophies to upgrade the theology. Religion updates itself, even if slowly. The problem begins with people, not the religion. Religion is quite compatible since it adapts to new social realities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
@Frostdragon4.
Dawkins isn't saying that teaching religion is itself abuse, but that it easily can be. Concepts like hell, jihad, contraception being bad and abortion being bad are all beliefs that can easily, easily, cause serious problem for someone who is taught them from a vulnerable age. Most religions are fundamentally (whether they admit it or not) vindictive of those who do not believe. Dozens of wars in history have been caused by religion, and daily persecution takes place somewhere in the world, with capital punishment being inflicted on the 'criminals' commonly. Religions preach morality, but they cause much death. If we are to follow religions, we must be quite careful with how we teach it and what we teach when.
You say that religions adapts to new social realities, but how far can this go before it goes against scripture too deeply to be accepted? Many religious people already do not accept scripture as the literal word of god, so the advancement of society will either make atheists or fundamentalists of them. As far as I am concerned, organised religions are already slowly dying and we should not miss them. Instead of teaching mainly scripture, why not mainly teach general morality at least? Teach children to be open-minded, but also critical thinkers. If people want to hold faith in something they cannot verify, fine, but they have no place to enforce these views on their children, only to present them fairly.
You complain that it "doesn't change the message itself". But the messages young children receive are those of emotional context, not the finer points of doctrine. Tell children that God loves them unconditionally, show the children that their parents love them unconditionally, and they'll probably not be unduly troubled by what the Catechism has to say about Hell. But give children an angry, capricious God and angry, capricious parents, and the situation changes. The problem is emotional abuse, not religious dogma. (Dogma only becomes a problem when it starts to **** up their education with counter-scientific theories and anti-intellectual attitudes.)
Give the child that same home environment, and they'll probably turn out fine even if you beat them. That doesn't make beating them not abuse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Don't atheists usually defer to harm? That things that hurt others are generally considered bad? Maybe a bit simplistic, but you don't teach math to children starting at trigonometry.
To tell you the truth, I'm not the world's greatest debater or thinker, but I think this was the underlying question I was trying to get at. Is indoctrination bad? Is indoctrination required to teach religion to children? If so, is it abuse?
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
So if you were to take your child to a church whose preacher uses the fire-and-brimstone style of sermon, that would constitute abuse in your book? Extreme and graphic depictions of hell are a common tool for the preachers of some popular denominations, and they often highlight the ease with which one can be sent there.
Indoctrination is how we teach our children. That's what schools are. That's what parenting is. So it's a challenging question to answer. I thought about this a LOT back in the day, and I couldn't come up with a good reason why religion, by itself, is any worse than any other belief we instill in our children.
It entirely depends on exactly what is being said. I stated earlier in the thread that extreme beliefs can constitute abuse when they create environments that hide abuse.
If it's the extreme version you're talking about, I wouldn't consider it any different than constantly threatening your child.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Well, let's take a concrete example. Here's a sermon I found after a quick google search: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCnQQLUJHb8
The preacher spends 20 minutes giving graphic descriptions of the fires of hell and telling the audience how easy it is to end up there. Is taking your child to this church abuse?
This is a challenging question though: Is merely scaring your children abuse? I consider this kind of extremist belief to be abuse, by in another context it might not be.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Well, of course if there's some other kind of abuse going on, then it's abuse regardless of the hellfire sermons. So let's leave that out of it, and imagine that the only potential source of abuse here is the content and nature of the sermons.
Let's ease up a little now, and consider Catholic churches, which often don't feature that charismatic style, but still feature a the threat of hell as a real and pressing danger. Consider this Catholic sermon, whose content is quite similar to the previous video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4_GCGP51YQ
Is this also abuse?
You and I are very similar in this regard. I just think the ideas like "The Golden Rule" are human instincts/feelings/impulses/whatever you want to call it before they're religious values. Most people have an innate concept of harm before they ever identify with a religion.
Indoctrination has a quality of unquestioned authority, I think. As a soon to be educator, I don't think teachers typically go through their careers expecting children to not ask questions. I mean, there is certainly an element of "because I said so" inherent to parenting, but I don't think that's the sum total.
*edit Lunch break over. Gotta jet.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Okay so Tiax, I don't consider that abuse because content versus delivery is really important. Tell your kid 'Everyone dies at some point' is very different from telling your kid "YOU'RE GOING TO DIE" (for example).
Nodrog, you're right that school isn't much like that any more, but it hasn't always been the case. My parents' schooling was much more indoctrinating than our own. And remember, we have the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of every school day in the US. We don't even think about it anymore, but that's a separate issue.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I see, so if the first preacher said the exact same words but in the calm voice of the second preacher, that would no longer be abuse in your book?
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to me that what's important is the content. If the message is fundamentally damaging to the child, then it doesn't matter if you say it calmly.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
But certainly the mere act of yelling is not abuse? Taking a child to a sermon where the preacher is yelling about how much jesus loves you is very different from a sermon where the preacher is yelling about how terrible hell is going to be. It's the content that matters, not the yelling.
Sure, the content matters, but not so much to a kid who has tuned that crap out already. Having been raised Catholic, and gone through those sermons, they just rolled off me and I imagine many of the other kids. If my priest had been screaming at us about it, it would have affected me more more.
It's how the kids are treated regarding the religion that's important, in my opinion.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
"The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), (42 U.S.C.A. §5106g), as amended by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:
* Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or
* An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."
Is indoctrination child abuse? I don't think according to this definition it is necessarily, although of course there could be overlap between the two in the methods of indoctrination, but I do believe it's definitely bad parenting.
A change in volume doesn't alter the message. Yes, many kids will be able to cope with the imagery and implications of hellfire sermons, but it's also true that many kids are able to cope with and handle the effects of verbal or physical abuse. That doesn't change whether or not it's abuse.
I have a co-worker who said I would burn in hell b/c I'm atheist, lol. Teaching children this way is not only bad for them but for those around them.
Abstinence or refusing to teach children about sex, std's, protection etc is abusive also. It can cause teen pregnancy, catching deadly std's changing their lives forever.
It can also go the other way around where atheist can be just has judgement to the religious.
I am atheist but I believe it is our duty as parents to educate out children about as much stuff as possible meaning multiple religions, cultures, life etc regardless of ur beliefs.
But if you're so sure that volume doesn't change the effect of the message, why is raising your voice so effective in getting a kid to do something?
It could possibly be filed under emotional abuse, I guess.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
A change in volume may change the effect of the message, but it doesn't change the message itself. If the message itself is abusive, it doesn't matter whether you yell it or whisper it. Telling your kid you hate them is abusive even if you say it in a nice, calm voice. Telling your kid that they're going to roast in hell if they don't believe what you want them to is abusive whether the priest yells it or says it solemnly.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
So something stops being abuse if it's balanced out by a loving home environment? That makes zero sense.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
You complain that it "doesn't change the message itself". But the messages young children receive are those of emotional context, not the finer points of doctrine. Tell children that God loves them unconditionally, show the children that their parents love them unconditionally, and they'll probably not be unduly troubled by what the Catechism has to say about Hell. But give children an angry, capricious God and angry, capricious parents, and the situation changes. The problem is emotional abuse, not religious dogma. (Dogma only becomes a problem when it starts to **** up their education with counter-scientific theories and anti-intellectual attitudes.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The problem with homosexuality and atheism within the church "big picture" with the shunning, harassment, and bigotry shown to people by religion tends to be the worst of the religion. But that is also a part of bullying, harassment, and is a form of abuse through social rejection during teenage years. Especially whenever we as a country have extended unnecessarily the child rearing years and dependency of a particular person to sometimes their mid to late 20's. Which is ludicrous.
No, raising your "kid a certain religion" isn't, it's how you react whenever the kid rejects the religion early or later on that is. Whenever we can separate those two factors, we engage in a "better debate." Dawkins has serious issues with religion, but I still have serious issues with Dawkins. "Why do this it's a waste of time? It causes war!" seems to be a big part of his morality and historical interpretation. Which is a form of polemics, and I don't like polemics in general because I find it to be an annoyance to debate. Like that one kid in college that thinks they know everything and you're-an-idiot-everything-I-say-is-true.
The basic defense is that wars tend to be multifaceted and use economics or religion or territorial integrity as a pretext for war based on culturally transmitted norms and the typical communications of the age. With that said, treating atheists badly is indefensible just like homosexuals. Religion has been around for thousands of years as a socializing and morality tool and has been combined with different philosophies to upgrade the theology. Religion updates itself, even if slowly. The problem begins with people, not the religion. Religion is quite compatible since it adapts to new social realities.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Dawkins isn't saying that teaching religion is itself abuse, but that it easily can be. Concepts like hell, jihad, contraception being bad and abortion being bad are all beliefs that can easily, easily, cause serious problem for someone who is taught them from a vulnerable age. Most religions are fundamentally (whether they admit it or not) vindictive of those who do not believe. Dozens of wars in history have been caused by religion, and daily persecution takes place somewhere in the world, with capital punishment being inflicted on the 'criminals' commonly. Religions preach morality, but they cause much death. If we are to follow religions, we must be quite careful with how we teach it and what we teach when.
You say that religions adapts to new social realities, but how far can this go before it goes against scripture too deeply to be accepted? Many religious people already do not accept scripture as the literal word of god, so the advancement of society will either make atheists or fundamentalists of them. As far as I am concerned, organised religions are already slowly dying and we should not miss them. Instead of teaching mainly scripture, why not mainly teach general morality at least? Teach children to be open-minded, but also critical thinkers. If people want to hold faith in something they cannot verify, fine, but they have no place to enforce these views on their children, only to present them fairly.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Give the child that same home environment, and they'll probably turn out fine even if you beat them. That doesn't make beating them not abuse.