Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
trentvoyager

Child Abuse ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d7OyJtfmW8k

This is clearly child abuse to my mind.

A father who gets his son to preach such hatred.

The child should have been making himself ill on chocolate not forced to be unkind to decent people.

There is a strong case for the boy to be removed from his father. But only in America eh?
IvyOwl

Despicable!

That poor little lad. I wonder what they talk about at home? Do they ever really discuss anything or is it all ranting like that? For him to go on and on and on like that he must have been steeped in it!
Powwow

Not Child abuse, a child exercising his right to protest. Just as over a million did recently in Paris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DagB0oAwpIE
trentvoyager

pow wow wrote:
Not Child abuse, a child exercising his right to protest. Just as over a million did recently in Paris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DagB0oAwpIE




Really?

You are telling me that child would willingly stand in front of  a church with only his father filming the situation if he had not been pushed to do it. Come off it.

If anyone is exercising anything here - it is the father over the child - and in a very damaging way.
Shaker

Yes, of course it's manifestly child abuse. No child of his age - ten? eleven, perhaps? - would come up on his own with something along the lines of: "I know what'll be a great way to spend my time - standing on the pavement with a placard I can barely hold up, with religious claptrap on it, shouting at people."

I'm not remotely surprised that some people can't see this as abuse and/or defend it, however. Deeply depressed but not at all surprised. As soon as you bring religion into the picture the most self-evident atrocities are, for some, instantly justified. It's their "faith," you know. It's their "deeply held belief." And that makes everything all right.
cyberman

I'm afarid I can't open the link. What does the film show?
gone

The poor kid has probably no idea what he is shouting about, and just regurgitating the spiel of the despicable parent! I would hope that in the UK the social services would be on the case if this had happened over here. I suspect the police would have intervened too.
Powwow

Well, I don't see that it's abuse. You folks underestimate what children are able to think up. By that I mean wanting to protest in front of a liberal church.
Shaker says abuse as well. Interesting, I wonder if he has a court of law in mind that can do justice. You know, one that he has faith in and knows the conviction or not, is sound.  
I don't imagine I would like to have been raised in the family that this boy is in but being taught homosexuality is wrong, being taught that if you are not born again you will go to hell, is sound Biblical teaching. Of course I come from a family that would never badger people of other views.
So what you godless ones need to do is start a campaign to ban the Bible. lol
trentvoyager

So presumably you have no problem either with the father calling a woman who just said "God Bless You" to the child - something like a "mean spirited witch" (can't remember the exact words).

You think that is a good Christian example for a father to be setting his son.

Sick Joke.

What do you think that boy is going to grow up to be like?

Is he going to display a tolerance of difference? I would have thought you had a good grasp on what intolerance of difference can do - clearly not.

Or is it only intolerance when directed at some - and not the (undeserving in your opinion) others.
Powwow

Trent,
I personally don't think that child and father should be doing what they are doing. But they have the right to do it. That father and son can stand there and call everyone a witch. And trent, you could stand there and call that son and father whatever you want.
Here's a little secret for you. There are people that don't attend church, don't read the Bible and have no religious affiliation that target homosexuals. Some resort to beating them up and even murder. And trent, I've seen with my own eyes that kids start young. There were always the bullies in school that would target kids and accuse them of being gay. And these kids that are bullies were not from Christian homes.

I fully support parents being held responsible for the behavior of their children.
So if that child is breaking the law, then both child and parent must pay for their crime.
Still not abuse.
gone

I regard my childhood introduction to Christianity as abusive. I had terrible nightmares in consequence.
Ketty

I'm not sure about the 'abuse' angle: children are like sponges who just soak up what they see and hear, and they're capable of acting out all of that.   Watching the clip, it crossed my mind that as a parent, I'd never allow a child of mine to stand with placard on a street corner to berate passers by - whatever the message.
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
So presumably you have no problem .....


erm... I think there is a large gulf between "I think this is indictable child abuse" and "I have no problem with this whatsoever". Maybe Powwow occupies a position somewhere within this gulf..?
gone

But surely it is abusive of the parent to fill a kid with such hatred and encourage him to give vent to it?
cyberman

I've no idea - I haven't seen the film.

When Unison and whatnot are on strke, you often see on the news kids holding placards with slogans like "Hands Off My Dad's Pension" and things like that. Is that abuse? Should social services be called?
trentvoyager

Cyber

I would suggest this:
Quote:
Not Child abuse, a child exercising his right to protest. Just as over a million did recently in Paris.


Is saying he has no problem with it.

A child exercising his right to protest. That phrase doesn't carry a great deal of uncertainty does it ?
Ketty

Floo wrote:
But surely it is abusive of the parent to fill a kid with such hatred and encourage him to give vent to it?


But isn't that what a significant number of parents do?  I'm not saying it's 'right', it's not - but some parents hate all sorts of things, for example people of other cultures, and that attitude is imbibed by their offspring, similarly hatred of a different 'class', or life-style choices . . . etc.  So we end up with too many people who hate others and exhibit that behaviour through racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other relevant 'ism', or 'phobia'.

If his parents needed to do anything at all, then maybe they could hold a placard saying: 'John 3:16!  Acts 2:38!'.  But, as I said, as a mother, there is no way I'd allow my child to do such a thing.
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
Cyber

I would suggest this:
Quote:
Not Child abuse, a child exercising his right to protest. Just as over a million did recently in Paris.


Is saying he has no problem with it.

A child exercising his right to protest. That phrase doesn't carry a great deal of uncertainty does it ?


But elsewhere Powwow has said clearly that saying someone has a right to do something does not mean he likes it. So, no, it doesn't have to mean he has no problem with it.

"The Daily Mail have exercised their right to voice their opinions about the Welfare State"

Does the above comment indicate that I have no problem with the Mail?
trentvoyager

Would still argue strongly that this goes beyond normal activity for a child and amounts to abuse.

What that abuse could lead to in the future is anyone's guess. The fact that Powwow defends the right of people to behave like that is itself beyond the pale.

PW makes the point that I could go and shout and call people names on the street. Great - thats going to make the world a whole lot better.

Profanity heaped on profanity is just so the way to go.  

If some posters thought beyond the end of their noses before posting it would be a good idea.
Powwow

Oh trent, scramble down off your soap box. Did the million protesters against gay marriage in France have that right to protest. In your view were they making the world a better place?

People protest about pot being illegal, they have that right. Personally I don't think they should protest and I don't think the protest nor smoking pot makes the world a better place.

Here's a little secret for you, neo nazis do little Bible study, and raise their children to hate other races. Does the KKK have the right to march? Yes. Do they have the right to marry and raise children? Yes. Do I like it? NO, BUT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT.

Are you off on a witch hunt for the children of all people you feel offended by? Are you on a campaign to remove their rights and removing them from their fathers and mothers, keeping those right for yourself and those who think like you?
IvyOwl

PowWow with regard to the link you posted. You seem to have your wires crossed. None of us here are against the right to peaceful protest.

What we are against is using your child to rant abuse at adult strangers. And that's all it was, a rant. That the father wasn't .. ahem 'preaching' himself but getting his son to do it in his stead is I feel deeply disturbing. The child is not yet old enough to fully understand the issues he's shouting about neither from a biblical, social or psychological perspective.

He may or may not have offered to do  it to try and please his father (I nearly said 'dad' there but that has overtones of kindness which don't seem to fit here) but it would have been to gain favour with him. That's the only 'thinking for himself' he did!

As you say children and young people do think things through for themselves and can come up with all sorts of wise things but lacking the experience they more often than not come up with half baked notions. All the same it's part of an ongoing process of learning to come up with ideas and should be encouraged. However in this case I can see NO sign whatsoever of the child thinking of the issues for himself. Just the very phrases he was using was just regurgitation of others opinions.

Poor poor little chap. What if he himself is homosexual?

Oh and for the poster above who brought up the point that during various strikes we see kids in pushcairs carrying hand written placards. I know what you mean I've sometimes cringed myself but it's not quite on the same level is it?
trentvoyager

Powwow

Read what Ivy said - I could not have worded it any better.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Powwow

Read what Ivy said - I could not have worded it any better.

Exactly. I was going to respond to IO's post until I realised that anything I could say in support would only be a fifth wheel, which is to say, something extraneous that doesn't actually serve any purpose over and above what's already there  
Powwow

Hey look, this is all speculation. What I stand on is the right to protest and yes unfortunately the right to call somebody a witch. We can all speculate and ask the what iffs. If you want to round up all the children in your country that have parents that maybe racist or anti gay, then go for it. But be prepared to loose every court battle you will have to wage trying to proving abuse.
You all are flirting with the government having eyes in every home and an army of thought police. Not a world I will get along with that's for sure.

Now Shaker has the right to call me a *edit*on the street or in the bear pit. I wouldn't dream of taking that fun away from him. God forbid, but if Shaker has a child, he can tell that child that I am *edit* No law broken, and still no abuse. That kid of Shakers can even call me that to my face. No crime, no foul. Do I like it? Of course not but I would never suggest stepping on their freedom. Now Shaker on this site you must keep those names for me in the Bear Pit ya?

Edited in the interests of consistency Mod TV
trentvoyager

Powwow, with respect you are still not getting it. Its not about the right to protest - never was.

Its about the child. If you truly think that is a reasonable and responsible thing that the father is doing to that boy then I'm sorry - shame on you.

In my world the right of the child trumps the right of the parent to use the boy as a pawn. You are quite right it happens in all sorts of ways - but are you telling me I can't object to it.

I'm not on some soap box (usual right wing deflection tactic noted) I was considering the child - and strangely, the churchgoers that you seem so dismissive of - odd that, an atheist thinking more of Christians than another Christian.

That's because I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Some Christians just believe in freedom for religion, provided its their particular brand.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
That's because I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Some Christians just believe in freedom for religion, provided its their particular brand.

That's going to be a signature of mine one day. I'm sure of it.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Hey look, this is all speculation. What I stand on is the right to protest and yes unfortunately the right to call somebody a witch.

I don't consider the right to protest to be absolute. I think it's one of the very greatest and, if I may use such a term, most sacred rights we (by we I mean most people in the West) enjoy. Like a great many of the most basic rights, it's something which I feel has to be defended again and again and again and again and again and again, in opposition to all the forces of self-interest, power, reaction and conformity ranged against it. But by 'not absolute' I mean that I can, just about, conceive of good reasons why such a right ought to be curtailed or at the very least infringed for the greater and the common good, in exceedingly rare instances. An example: the Westboro Baptist Church haven't had their right to say vile, disgusting, hateful and verminous things about private individuals they didn't even know at their funerals curtailed - they have been moved on further down the street from such funerals so that their nauseating abuse isn't heard or is vastly less likely to be heard by that individual's grieving family and friends who want to remember their loved one in peace and with some dignity. If that's the wishy-washy, hand-wringing, bleeding heart liberal compromise between decency and stupidity, sign me up. I'm on board. I can't see any other way around it, frankly. I just can't.

While we're about it I'm not sure that I can conceive of any right that I consider to be absolute, that is, one which admits of no exceptions whatsoever, no matter how far-fetched or implausible. I know full well that these sorts of pie-in-the-sky, would-never-really-happen-but-let's-pretend-what-if scenarios are just the sort of thing that senior lecturers give first year law students to cut their teeth on, but still.

Quote:
You all are flirting with the government having eyes in every home and an army of thought police. Not a world I will get along with that's for sure.

Me either. I have been vocally critical of what I consider to be my government's (of all political parties concerned) ever-increasing roll-out of a mass surveillance state in the form of the ever-increasing prevalence of CCTV and face/numberplate recognition technology; one of the world's largest DNA databases (wholly disproportionately consisting of young black and/or Asian men); biometric passports; and the proposals (defeated but, I believe I have good reason for saying, not safely considered completely dead) for a nationwide national biometric identity card scheme.

This has nothing to do with the evident psychological abuse of a minor at the hands of its parent.
Powwow

So you would curtail another's right to protest. So you're not the libertarian after all. Got it.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
So you would curtail another's right to protest.

In exceptionally rare and extreme cases for the greater and the common good, yes. There's no right that I can think of that I would regard as absolute, insofar as absolute means 'admitting of no possible conceivable exceptions whatsoever, however rare and extreme and improbable.'

Haven't I already said this, and therefore aren't I repeating myself yet again? Oh yes, so I am.
Quote:
So you're not the libertarian after all. Got it.

No, you haven't got it in the slightest. Sorry to break the bad news to you but libertarian doesn't mean 'tolerates and accepts absolutely every and any thing,' any more than tolerant means 'will put up with/respect anything no matter what, without complaint or censure' or open-minded means 'will consider every proposition as equally probable.'

It seems you have a lot to learn about the way the real world actually works. No wonder you habitually call me 'old man', for goodness only knows what reason - it appears to be because like a great many of the immature,  you have no apparent grasp of the way reality operates.
Powwow

trent,
No, it's you that doesn't get it. You are speculating that the child is suffering abuse.
And I said already that I personally do not approve of the child's behavior nor his dad's.  I do support the right of everyone to protest. If those two have committed a crime, what is it exactly?
And I have stated that bullies that target gays also come from non religious families. I know it, I've seen them in my junior high school. Interesting when I went to the Christian high school, no such behaviour was there.
You have stated that I wear bigot blinders. Aside from that being an outright lie, I concede you have the right to smear me and I would never take that right from you.
cyberman

trentvoyager wrote:
Some Christians just believe in freedom for religion, provided its their particular brand.


When have you encountered Christians seeking to deny to Christians of another denomination their freedom of religion?

(Maybe in this film? - I still can't see it!)
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Some Christians just believe in freedom for religion, provided its their particular brand.


When have you encountered Christians seeking to deny to Christians of another denomination their freedom of religion?

(Maybe in this film? - I still can't see it!)


Don't know why you can't see it - its a youtube thingie I think. So apologies - i'll look for another way to link it if I can find one.

Anyway, frequently even on the R & E message board I see posters say things like (I paraphrase here) "You are not a true Christian - you will not go to heaven".
That is an attempt by a form of coersion to frighten people from their viewpoint and to deny them that viewpoint. The young boy in the film could be interpreted as trying to deny the other churchgoers in that film their freedom to worship. He certainly denies them their freedom to worship in peace.
Powwow

But trent,
you have a habit of telling people who do not approve of the gay life style, gay marriage etc, ect, as bigots or of wearing bigot blinders. That is an attempt to scare them off from exercising their right to voice and to hold their opinions.
As to those protesters. They were breaking no laws. They were not in the church and disrupting the service.
I went to see Ann Coulter last time she was here. I had to walk with my sisters through a crowd smearing us with names such as homophobe, racist, nazi, blah blah. All lies but they had the right to be right up next us. I would not deny them that. However these liberal socialists agitators did break the laws and did disrupt the speech. They began throwing rocks smashing windows and banging on the walls of the auditorium. The police were there to deal with those guilty as they should. That child and father did no law breaking and what they did do pales compared to what I have experienced from socialist agitators.
IvyOwl

Hi PowWow,

Shaker said
Quote:
No, you haven't got it in the slightest.
and I've got to agree with him. He took the time and trouble to spell his viewpoint out to you (a viewpoint incidently I can't disagree with, it being so reasonable) and your reply shows that you've not really taken it aboard at all.

You've got yourself all of an indignation over our reaction to the film Trent posted. I'm assuming it's because you don't disagree with the sentiments being expressed even though you'd personally not use those methods.

The thing is we'd be just as appalled if it was a member of the BNP using his son to rant hatred in the street, or a socialist getting his child to rant at a bankers meeting! Or any parent using a child to express opinions on their behalf in such a manner.  At best it's cowardly, at worst it's cruel to set your own child up like that.

Of course parents will pass onto their offspring their own beliefs and values. Hopefully education will neutralise the negative ones.* But to so brain wash your child as to put them beyond education is in my opinion downright wicked! It would seem that's what this father has done. Can you imagine what would happen if this child ever developed a different opinion to his father .... can you imagine they'd have a discussion around the table? Do you think they'd agree to differ and the father still love his son?

To be fair I believe that deep down you do 'get it' (well at least partially) but because of the subject matter in this case you can't let it go and have got to go on trying to pick Shakers posts to bit's leaving the rest of us bemused.

*By which I mean hating people or fearing things without good reason.

I've just read your post which came in as I was writing this <sigh> PowWow you are still not quite getting it. The discussion isn't about breaking the law or not. Throwing missiles damaging, property injuring people etc is wrong independant of the cause.

Quote:
That child and father did no law breaking and what they did do pales compared to what I have experienced from socialist agitators.


Eh? Once again we are not discussing the right to protest!! We are discussing a parent getting his child to do his protesting for him ... particularly over an issue which the child can have no real understanding of. And I'm not speculating there as you suggested in an earlier post .... it's knowing a bit about child psychology and how the brain developes. THAT CHILD WAS RANTING ABOUT THINGS WAY BEYOND HIS COMPREHENSION. The father was encouraging his son to make a complete ass* of himself.

*To be clear 'ass' this side of the pond means 'fool' it wasn't meant as a pun! I wasn't using it in the American version.
Shaker

IvyOwl wrote:
Hi PowWow,

Shaker said
Quote:
No, you haven't got it in the slightest.
and I've got to agree with him. He took the time and trouble to spell his viewpoint out to you (a viewpoint incidently I can't disagree with, it being so reasonable) and your reply shows that you've not really taken it aboard at all.

You've got yourself all of an indignation over our reaction to the film Trent posted. I'm assuming it's because you don't disagree with the sentiments being expressed even though you'd personally not use those methods.

The thing is we'd be just as appalled if it was a member of the BNP using his son to rant hatred in the street, or a socialist getting his child to rant at a bankers meeting! Or any parent using a child to express opinions on their behalf in such a manner.  At best it's cowardly, at worst it's cruel to set your own child up like that.

I would say that it could well be construed as a definition of abuse to bring up a child in such a manner that its attitudes and opinions, and most likely its behaviour, are going to lead it to being materially disadvantaged in society as an adult. I'll use IO's example of the BNP parent(s) as an illustration. If a child is brought up from day one with a constant drip-feed of racism in the home from one or both parents - brought up in an environment where certain groups of society are labelled and dehumanised as niggers, pakis, chinks, kikes, queers and the like - then it's hardly surprising that the child is very likely indeed to absorb that kind of influence and grow up in the same manner to be a repeat performance of the racist and homophobic views of the parent(s). Because Britain for all its undoubted faults and problems is a broadly racially harmonious and by and large tolerant society, anybody with strongly racist, zealous political or fundamentalist religious views is disadvantaged. They are looked down upon by the broad majority and - as we've seen a number of times in the not too distant past - they can find themselves working in jobs where their beliefs leave them in conflict with working practice and the law.

That kind of imprinting obviously doesn't take in all cases - some people do evade the influence of their parents to a greater or lesser degree, whether that influence is good or bad - and furthermore, some people brought up in such conditions (I don't know whether such an example really goes on in the UK; perhaps here and there it might, I guess) can and do re-evaluate their early imprinting, think about it long and hard and turn their backs on it. This happens with religious beliefs so I see no reason why it can't happen with other sorts of belief. But it's not worth the risk, because of what's at stake. Children such as this haven't become this way while out playing in the street with their mates - this is entirely at the feet of the adults around them:




This applies to any more or less fixed ideology, be it religious, political or anything else.

Quote:
Of course parents will pass onto their offspring their own beliefs and values. Hopefully education will neutralise the negative ones.* But to so brain wash your child as to put them beyond education is in my opinion downright wicked! It would seem that's what this father has done. Can you imagine what would happen if this child ever developed a different opinion to his father .... can you imagine they'd have a discussion around the table? Do you think they'd agree to differ and the father still love his son?

Excellent points.
Quote:
To be fair I believe that deep down you do 'get it' (well at least partially) but because of the subject matter in this case you can't let it go and have got to go on trying to pick Shakers posts to bit's leaving the rest of us bemused.


And bored.
Powwow

Ivy,
Speculation. I don't know what goes on in that home. I can't charge that parent with abuse and neither can you or the police.
What do you want done to all the racist parents in your country? How are you going to get the courts to take the children away?

And I have stated before, I don't approve of those two but it is their right to do it and I won't take that from them.

You know homosexuality was never a topic in mom and dad's home but I was taught that if you are not born again you will not see heaven.
Dad would have never permitted me to behave like that kid and get in people faces like that.

What I think we have here is a parent that likes to protest against gays and a boy that wants to be just like dad. I can't say there is abuse as I just don't know the home.
IvyOwl

Quote:
What I think we have here is a parent that likes to protest against gays and a boy that wants to be just like dad.


PowWow, no one is arguing the father's right to protest against gays. We may think it's a bit weird that he should want/need to be so vocal (I actually find it a bit creepy and unhealthy) about other peoples love and or sex life but he's a right to his opinions.

I'm not even arguing against his right to pass on his beliefs any more than the racist passing on his (although of course I believe that the world would be a better place if we could. The thing is there is no way we can legislate against it and still keep an open society.)

What I'm saying is it's WRONG for the father to encourage (actually it came across in the clip as somewhat more than encourageing bullying more like) to hector ... no let's use that word again BULLY,  adults on an issue he can have no concept or undertanding of in any way shape or form other than it's something his Father is obsessed by.


Quote:
I can't say there is abuse as I just don't know the home.


Oh come on PowWow. You've got at least to wonder what sort of a father he makes in other areas if he thinks it's a worthwhile use of time to rant and rave his beliefs in such a public manner. He doesn't  do it out of love now does he? If he can do that to perfect strangers do you really imagine that he'd tolerate alternative viewpoints in the home.)
Powwow

I don't approve of their actions, but I can't charge that kid's parents with abuse.
What is child abuse is a matter of opinion. If the law doesn't see child abuse there, well, that's it then.
Shaker

This sentence:
pow wow wrote:
What is child abuse is a matter of opinion.


is contradicted by this one:

Quote:
If the law doesn't see child abuse there, well, that's it then.


which makes it clear that the law decides what constitutes child abuse. Laws vary by country, are perpetually subject to change and people are free to disagree with the law's definition and agitate to have it changed.
Powwow

Yes Shaker, there is a difference of opinion on what is child abuse. The law applies and makes that determination in a court room. So where is there a contradiction? I just stated the facts is all. Good grief man!
Yes Shaker you can agitate for the laws being changed. As I can agitate on the lack of laws on abortion here in my country. I can agitate to make sure no government legalizes prostitution or decriminalizes drug possession.
But rule of law applies. Yes?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum