Wow, people are actually taking the OP seriously. Okay, me and my sarcasm seem to have come to the wrong place.

...Hence the need for further research and links to pathology. Technology has offered many new modalities in this pursuit.

Makes me wonder what the brains of fundamentalists look like when they are working through a decision that engages those beliefs as it compares with a brain of someone who engages rationally.

I'm thinking that most of it is actually developmental particularly given how much of this irrational thought is pushed onto immature brains.

Bushidobillyclub --

I agree. This is why I think indoctrination of children is really child abuse.

Is raising one's child in a particular religious tradition abusive?

For now, forget all about religion. Suppose that a couple decides to raise their child as sort of a prolonged experiment in child development. Make them a pair of unethical child psychologists if you like. They deliberately teach their child a bunch of nonsense (e.g., incorrect names for all the colors, incorrect terms for basic words, strange magical notions, etc.). They homeschool their child until high school, carefully controlling all the child's interactions and media exposure to make sure that their teachings go unchallenged. They then send their child off to high school and monitor the consequences.

Is this abusive? I suspect most of us would agree that it is. The parents are deliberately providing inaccurate information without correction, setting the child up for what will surely be a devastating trauma.

Time for another example, one which is much more realistic and unfortunately common. A racist couple who belong to the Klan and various other white supremacist groups are firmly committed to raising their child to have similar beliefs. If you've seen any of the documentaries on hate groups on the History Channel or other cable networks, you've seen this. Disturbing images of babies in Klan garb or with little swastikas. Makes you sick, doesn't it? Basically, these parents raise their child from birth to hate everyone who they hate. And yet, when you see their toddler, you recognize that this is not a racist child but a child raised by racist parents.

Is this abusive? I suspect that most of us would agree that it is, however, I'd argue that this case actually goes beyond child abuse. How? In addition to damaging the child, these parents are raising a child who is likely to be a potential threat to the rest of us. If you are going to stand by the "I have the right to raise my child however I see fit" claim, note that this is exactly what these parents typically say.

Now look at the parents who raise their child in a particular religious tradition. Like the first example, they end up teaching their child a bunch of nonsense, ranging from incorrect information about the natural world to magical (i.e., supernatural) rubbish. But like the second example, they do this because they genuinely believe it to be true. Worse, like the second couple, they teach hatred and exclusion. "But Christianity/Islam/Judaism is about love!" How is fostering an us-and-them mentality where children are taught that they are members of a "chosen" group - an island of good surrounded by evil - who must adhere to ancient superstition or risk the hell to which all the nonbelievers are condemned, about love?

Is this abusive? In other words, is raising a child to value irrationality (i.e., faith) over reason and to accept an inherently divisive belief system a form of abuse?

The desire to label people insane and take their kids away for being taught religion is frightening. This is where DOMA originates from. Some homosexuals just want to get married, but many want to attack religion and religious people. This place where philosophical disagreements turn into attacks on the opponents trying to destroy not their faith, but their very lives and families.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_85c9b9e0-b195-5b08-bd76-6df955e64adf.htmlWhat do you think about this?

This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It has the following form:

1. Sample S, which is biased, is taken from population P.
2. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.

Before there was a name or treatment for diabetes people died of it all the time. But there is no accounting for stupidity.

Show me the conclusion I drew from a population?

You are so quick to try to cry foul, are you even reading the posts?

No fallacies at all what so ever.
Well there is when your parents taught you that stupidity.

I never said is applies to the entire population of religious people.

You are just mad and trying to find anything to disagree with.

Then your post of that link was a Non sequitur. It's not my fault that it confused me. I thought you were defending your earlier statement with that one example. I honestly don't care if you believe me or not.



That's simply not true. I've explained why I thought you were defending your position with that one link. You can't get past this one point and move on, that's your problem. That doesn't mean I'm mad or looking for things to disagree with you on.

I think your confusing my position with the straw man you want it to be.

I am not going to respond to anything you have to say anymore Spider, you are on my troll list bud.

If only I could ignore your posts in this forum, how I would love that feature.