…and this is a 
Child abuse? Or not?
Category: Religion
Posted on: June 20, 2007 2:31 PM, by PZ Myers
A 7-year old boy is traveling around the country, standing on street corners and preaching hellfire at passers-by (you can hear him in a recording, too). He's part of a caravan of Baptists making an expedition up to the land of the Yankees to tell us all we're going to hell.
Is this abuse? The poor kid is wasting time on the Bible and haranguing random people at the behest of his parents. Oh, excuse me, at the behest of God.
The evangelical Baptist couple nurtured his talents with Bible readings in the womb and bought Samuel his first guitar at age four, said his mother. They read the Bible together every day as a family and have home-schooled their two boys.
Asked if their son is being exploited, his mother said, "We're not making him preach. That's God's job."
So if it is child abuse and exploitation, it's all god's fault? Can we have him arrested for that? I do wish we could arrest all those parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to keep their children ignorant.
Maybe if we monitor this kid, will be able to get evidence for the existence of god when we catch him compelling a 7-year old to do unnatural acts, like bible study. Especially since he doesn't seem entirely enthusiastic about the occupation his parents have chosen for him.
Samuel, who studies the Bible for about one hour each night, wasn't sure if he wanted to grow up to be a minister.
"It's harder to learn to be a pastor than to preach," he said haltingly.
If he's a typical young boy, he'd probably rather be a baseball player or fireman. I also hate to say it, but from the recording he's not a very good preacher, either, and I hope he doesn't dream of a career in music.
I find it all sad and depressing and unfortunate for the kid, so I'd have to say this is an example of religiously-motivated intellectual abuse. I wish I knew what we could do about it.
Comments
I noticed this yesterday (I've lived in Roanoke for much of this millennium) and also noticed the kid's singing voice is assawful.
No way is this kid doing this of his own accord, but of course his nutter parents are convinced he is.
Posted by: kemibe | June 20, 2007 2:40 PM
Marjoe Gortner redux.
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 20, 2007 2:45 PM
"We're not making him preach. That's God's job."
Keep telling yourself that when he doesn't live up to your innane ideas.
But whats worse? This or a mother who forces her little kids to go to sports or beauty contests and the like? Either way it screws the little kids up.
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | June 20, 2007 2:47 PM
My first thought was to extract the audio and make a Steve Reich-esque "It's Gonna Rain" spoof, but I can't seem to get the raw media data from that website. Firefox VideoDownloader, I find your lack of success disturbing!
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 20, 2007 2:56 PM
Posted by: Cairnarvon | June 20, 2007 2:59 PM
This kid's probably happy as he can be-- no sitting through class, he gets to hang out with his daddy, can judge people all day long, and mug for the TV cameras. What's sad is that he's probably the intellectual equal of his father; all that this sort of preaching requires is easily within the reach of a seven-year old.
Posted by: DaveX | June 20, 2007 3:03 PM
"We're not making him preach. That's God's job."
Excuse me? It's God's job to make him preach? Please tell me she was just flustered when put in front of a mike/camera (like many of us) and worded it badly. It really would be sad if she feels it's God's job to make people preach for him. (And is he subject to on-the-job discipline?)
Posted by: Leon | June 20, 2007 3:06 PM
Because the closest tool at hand was designed to grab the whole thing. Now that convenience has failed, I might as well try for something else.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 20, 2007 3:07 PM
We can only hope he goes the route of Marjoe - makes a documentary revealing the scam, then makes a short-lived career in B-movies.
Posted by: Brando | June 20, 2007 3:10 PM
Is this child abuse? Of course it is. If nothing else, the parents are guilty of depriving the child of a real education, instead force-feeding him myths and fallacies. IMHO, parent are free to teach their kid religious nonsense, but only in addition to real-world learning, not in place of it. (The challenge here is that most of these parents are probably well aware that introducing reality into the education will throw the ridiculous notions of religion into stark relief.)
What can we do? One, require that home-schoolers pass competency tests in real subjects (and make these tests actually challenging). Any child who cannot pass at the end of each school year simply cannot be home-schooled anymore. A parent incapable of educating a child to reasonable norms of competency in real subjects is not fit to home-school, regardless of religion.
Also, openly ridicule the parents' idiocy (to the parents only) and question the child's beliefs. Don't ridicule the child---he didn't ask to be born to morons. But ask the child why he believes what he believes. Tell him that most adults do not believe these things, and that it's okay for him to question them, too.
You won't change anything at that moment, but you can plant a seed that may grown into fruit later in life. As someone who grew up under the sole tutelage of religious lunatics, I wish some responsible adults had done that for me.
Posted by: cureholder | June 20, 2007 3:13 PM
It's a good argument against home schooling. Children shouldn't be exposed only to their parents' ideas, or under their control 24/7.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 20, 2007 3:19 PM
"Because the closest tool at hand was designed to grab the whole thing. Now that convenience has failed, I might as well try for something else"
My goodness Blake, you just described my entire life!
Posted by: Robert | June 20, 2007 3:27 PM
@cureholder
>>Tell him that most adults do not believe these things, and that it's okay for him to question them, too.
An overwhelming majority of people in this country believe in God. And most don't believe in evolution. So - this statement is a lie.
And no - I don't think this is child abuse. Stupid? yes but not child abuse.
Posted by: yoshi | June 20, 2007 3:28 PM
If every Muslim parent in America pulled their kids out of school tomorrow and announced "Don't worry, we're going to teach them everything they need to know at home." - there would be a law requiring all children to attend public school by next Wednesday.
Posted by: Shaun | June 20, 2007 3:35 PM
@Gerard Harbison
I know two couples homeschooling their children. But they are not religious nutcases. It just that their local public school is awful and financial situation does not allow private schooling (on the flip side the local public school is wonderful in my district where I live is wonderful). Unfortunately they are in the minority for homeschooling. I believe that people should have as wide choices as possible to educate their kids and many different routes work for different people. If you completely ban one route due to incompetence - you would have to close half the public schools in this country (meaning US).
Posted by: yoshi | June 20, 2007 3:35 PM
I face similar people among the protesters at the Planned Parenthood clinic where I volunteer. Some of the protesters drag along their kids, ranging from 5 to 17 or 18. And those kids proceed to attempt to preach "truth" to clinic patients. I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for them. In any case, I think a case could be made for child abuse. All, incidentally, are home schooled. I've asked--both kids and parents.
Posted by: Keanus | June 20, 2007 3:36 PM
I found the entire thing very reassuring. The video showed clearly that for all their shouting and side-show antics, they couldn't pull together more than 2-3 people at at a time.
I only wish I could have been there. I never pass up an opportunity to interact with these nut jobs when I run into them. I know the signs say not to tease the animals, but I've also been known to walk on the grass and run with scissors.
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | June 20, 2007 3:37 PM
Gerard:
I was homeschooled until high school. I'm now an agnostic working on a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. There is nothing inherent in homeschool that is bad. Admittedly my parents aren't the standard, they made an active effort to expose me to alternate ideas and to get me involved in the community outside of their supervision (volunteering and the like).
Like PZ said, the problem is when it is used as an excuse. In my case it was used as a tool to allow me to go deeper with my interests in history and science than is possible in a class environment. In second grade I asked why Pluto takes longer to go around the sun than the Earth even though it moves faster. What followed was a year long exploration of astronomy, math, and physics. I finished it with a presentation to the 2nd grade class I would have been part of if I had been at the local public school. That's how homeschooling should be used.
Posted by: Dan B | June 20, 2007 3:43 PM
No, I won't call this child abuse. A friend of mine was the victim of real sexual molestation as a child, so I cringe at attempts to compare what this boy's parents are doing to my best friend getting raped by her grandfather when she was 10.
Posted by: FastEddie | June 20, 2007 3:47 PM
Blake, the audio is here:
http://www.roanoke.com/multimedia/soundslides/streetpreacher/publish_to_web/audio_hi.mp3
I used the Download Helper extension.
Posted by: M. H. | June 20, 2007 3:56 PM
It's trivializing child abuse to give that label to any parental behavior we don't approve of. Personally, I find Boy Scouts almost as abhorrent as what this child is having to do, but I wouldn't label either as "child abuse".
Posted by: Nathan Parker | June 20, 2007 4:01 PM
Good point, FastEddie.
Posted by: Leon | June 20, 2007 4:01 PM
They bought him a guitar at age four? Good; with any like he'll rebel and be playing Lordi covers by the time he's 14...
Posted by: A Hermit | June 20, 2007 4:04 PM
M. H.:
Thanks.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 20, 2007 4:07 PM
Not that I condone it (the bible is one of the most grotesque works of man), but maybe the kid should actually read the bible...Matthew 6:5-7 perhaps. It would be a start. "...do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men..."
Posted by: Bryce | June 20, 2007 4:09 PM
I agree with FastEddie: let's reserve the term "child abuse" for more clear-cut cases of physical or emotional abuse and neglect, of which unfortunately our society is in no short supply. No sense "pulling a Stanley Fish" on that clear term.
I'll call this a case of intellectual malnutrition. Probably most parents are guilty of this at least some of the time.
Posted by: cm | June 20, 2007 4:10 PM
It may not be child abuse, but it is exploitation. Child labour laws give too many loopholes for parents to exploit their children, but they clearly state that he is being made to work by some other person, other than his parents.
Posted by: IanR | June 20, 2007 4:10 PM
This is ABSOLUTELY child abuse! Abuse comes in many forms physical, sexual, and MENTAL. In comparison to physical and sexual abuse, mental abuse is often considered less damaging by most. Tell that to the families of doctors who were murdered by indoctrinated luncatics.
Posted by: Steve P | June 20, 2007 4:12 PM
I mean lunatics of course
Posted by: Steve P | June 20, 2007 4:13 PM
My condolences to your friend, but are you actually under the impression that "child abuse" only consists of *sexual* mistreatment?
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 20, 2007 4:27 PM
If the kid actually wants to stand on the street corner and shout a people about god and what sinners they are, imagine what an unbearable asshat he's going to be as an adult.
Hopefully he'll go back to his little Jesusland town and not come out again.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | June 20, 2007 4:32 PM
I called the police on some JWs who showed up at my door on a school day with a school-age child in tow.
Dunno what became of them, but the police were interested and made them go away.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 20, 2007 4:39 PM
That's how Hector Avalos and Marjoe Gortner got their start...they turned out okay.
Posted by: Cat's Staff | June 20, 2007 4:44 PM
I think I feel more sad to what would happen to his mental state if he somehow realized that a Christian God does not exist. The worse feeling, in my opinion, is when you realized you wasted your life on a fruitless endeavor. I can only imagine if one realizes they wasted their entire childhood on said endeavor.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | June 20, 2007 4:45 PM
I think our time can be better spent doing something about, oh, this for instance: The Child Health Site
With a simple, daily click of the blue "Fund Healthcare for Children" button at The Child Health Site, visitors help children. Visitors pay nothing. The treatments and preventative services described above are paid for by our site sponsors and accomplished through our charitable partners, who currently include Mercy Corps, the Prosthetics Outreach Foundation, Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation and Helen Keller International.
Self righteous indignation is all well and good, but this little frick doesn't seem to be complaining, he looks healthy, and he may grow up to be a country and western star. He may grow up to be an abortion clinic bomber, but he may decide that his parents are slave driving control freaks and rebel, turning to life of drug induced debauchery just to spite his mama.
Or maybe we can get him to recite some bible passages from Ezekiel 23:20, to wit: "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
LMAO! Or maybe he will get some good material for stand up comedy: (more Zeke)
21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. [c]
22 "Therefore, Oholibah, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will stir up your lovers against you, those you turned away from in disgust, and I will bring them against you from every side- 23 the Babylonians and all the Chaldeans, the men of Pekod and Shoa and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them, handsome young men, all of them governors and commanders, chariot officers and men of high rank, all mounted on horses.
Hey, those were her lovers? I'm sorry, I have a hard (pun) time imagining she turned from handsome men on horses, horses!, wouldn't they remind her of donkies?
24 They will come against you with weapons, [d] chariots and wagons and with a throng of people; they will take up positions against you on every side with large and small shields and with helmets. I will turn you over to them for punishment, and they will punish you according to their standards. 25 I will direct my jealous anger against you, and they will deal with you in fury. They will cut off your noses and your ears, and those of you who are left will fall by the sword. They will take away your sons and daughters, and those of you who are left will be consumed by fire.
And if that isn't enough to strike the fear of god into you, Oholibah you incredible slut...
26 They will also strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry.
So that's what inspired the phrase 'adding insult to injury'
Posted by: mikmik | June 20, 2007 4:57 PM
@#31. Will, do you really think he 'wants' to do this? No part of this story makes me believe that he has anything like a choice in the matter. He's been sucking down these cheap, shitty hellfire and salvation lies since before he was born. There is no alternative point of view for him, and can you imagine the possible ramifications for NOT standing on the corner and belting out proclamations to the damned like mummy (excuse me, "GOD") wants? Kids have strong tendencies to believe everything their parents tell them and to want desperately to please their parents and make them happy. This makes their little minds that much easier to commandeer and exploit, and that's what makes stories like these so heartbreaking. Even if he does somehow manage to throw off the shackles at some point in the future, it will be difficult if not impossible for him to recover from the emotional and psychological effects of his upbringing. I agree with Shawn that it would be a singularly horrific experience for him to come to terms with a godless universe . And yes, for the record, I do indeed consider this a form of child abuse.
Posted by: Jen Phillips | June 20, 2007 5:04 PM
It's abuse. There are many ways to abuse kids, and keeping them pig-ignorant is one way. So far, I got physical, mental, emotional... Add "keeping them pig-ignorant" to the list.
Why not teach the kid the earth is flat, too? The Bible teaches that (and yes, I'm aware this statement could cause a huge tangent in this thread; please don't let that happen!).
I've stated before that, near where I live, there's a Bible college (William Jessup). I figured they'd be strong in some areas; like, maybe a degree in math was worth something to them. So I got into their catalog and searched for "calculus", just for fun. They don't teach it.
I can't imagine a "university" not having at least a course in integration for business majors. It just makes no sense to me.
That's a form of abuse; charging university prices, and then not even offering classes surely 90% of their AP applicants will have already taken. Of course, I'd bet only one AP student in a million would even think of William Jessup.
What are the odds this kid will ever learn trig? 0%? So the kid is probably being deprived of even basic math, and thus will probably be confined in his career to menial jobs.
There's more than one way to abuse a kid. Allowing him to be a bad street preacher at the expense of real learning is one of those ways.
Posted by: MikeM | June 20, 2007 5:10 PM
This is like "training" (read "forcing" or otherwise "intimidating") a dog or a monkey to do clever tricks against their innate nature.
Its abusive to train circus animals to perform imbecilic amusements. This isn't any different - it merely demonstrates that human animal children are just as susceptible to trainers, but we already knew that. Yep, its animal abuse. Yep, its child abuse.
What a wonderfully diverse culture we have.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | June 20, 2007 5:17 PM
IanR says, "It may not be child abuse, but it is exploitation. Child labour laws give too many loopholes for parents to exploit their children, but they clearly state that he is being made to work by some other person, other than his parents."
That's fine. Call it "child slavery" then. Whatever. ITS ABUSE.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | June 20, 2007 5:24 PM
Hey, I live in Roanoke and this is the first I've heard of this. I didn't realize the circus had come to town (or at least the clowns). How sad for the little boy! I hope someday he is able to see there is a lot more to life than yelling at random people on street corners condemning them for not believing the silly things his parents have drummed into him.
Thanks mikmik. I need a t-shirt or bumper sticker that says "Ezekiel 23:20"
That would be a hoot!
Cheers,
Ray
Posted by: Ray | June 20, 2007 5:28 PM
I am horrified by people indoctrinating their children with these lies.
That said, my husband and I were both raised in crazy-fundie families, and both "got better" somewhere along the way. Maybe I am overly optimistic that children are naturally resilient and that people have the capacity to learn and grow beyond what they were taught as younglings; maybe I'm not. But I wouldn't call this child abuse. Stupid and counterproductive, yes; abusive, no.
(N.B.: sometime last year, my mom apologized to me for raising my sister, my brother and me in an environment of pro-Jesus, anti-gay propaganda. Oddly enough, we're all three a bunch of raging non-religious pro-gay libtards now; as is my mom. We all got better. Praise the Lord!)
Posted by: RedMolly | June 20, 2007 5:43 PM
RedMolly #41
I don't think there's even a little irony in how you turned out. Really, if you attend pretty much any decent university in this country, at about the Junior year (if you've lasted that long), you realize you're wasting time learning myths. It fogs the brain; it's a fairytale; even the most devout religious folks have doubts.
I think your experience is nothing like unusual. I think it's typical.
My epiphany came in 1983, while a student at UC Santa Cruz. I have absolutely never looked back. I looked up one day and said, "That's enough."
One of my best decisions ever.
Posted by: MikeM | June 20, 2007 5:53 PM
I wish I knew what we could do about it.
consider encouraging your state legislators to fold this behavior into already existing statutes covering cults in your state.
that would be a start, since many states already have anti-cult laws.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 5:55 PM
Personally, I find Boy Scouts almost as abhorrent as what this child is having to do, but I wouldn't label either as "child abuse".
or even remotely comparable, for that matter.
nice try at a strawman analogy, though.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 5:59 PM
I don't get the problem with calling this child abuse because it diminishes the meaning of, for instance, sexual abuse. It doesn't. It's like complaining that someone said his broken leg caused him pain, because it wasn't the pain of being disemboweled by wolves. We do not have precisely calibrated terms for these phenomena.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 20, 2007 6:16 PM
#11:
I completely agree with you. But I do have a friend whose whole family is homeschooled and seem pretty religious, and he's agnostic leaning toward atheism. He just pretends not to be when they're around.
So maybe it's not as damaging as it seems? I hope?
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | June 20, 2007 6:16 PM
I need a t-shirt or bumper sticker that says "Ezekiel 23:20"
Google is your friend. Landover Baptist has the gear that most closely resembles what you want.
Posted by: s9 | June 20, 2007 6:20 PM
My guess is, it's an issue of framing...
(Couldn't resist x.x)
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 20, 2007 6:27 PM
Look - another kid being trained to be one of two things:
1) a mountebank
2) a disillusioned burger-flipper
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 20, 2007 6:31 PM
> . Landover Baptist ..
I totally mis-read this as "Land Rover Baptist" and was thinking, "Hey... I could get behind that..."
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 20, 2007 6:36 PM
When I was 6 I wanted to be an exorcist, so *maybe* this is something that the kid wants to do. Of course my parents didn't tour me across the country casting out demons.
Yes, I was a strange kid.
Posted by: Ragnor | June 20, 2007 6:38 PM
Ok, those of you wanting to "do something" about homeschooling of this sort by getting it covered under child-abuse laws: while it's a satisfying thought, it's not a practical one.
Cureholder made what I think is the most sensible suggsestion yet on this subject. I've been waiting for someone to jump on it, but since no one has yet, I will. As he suggested, don't disallow homeschooling--what they need to do is subject homeschooled students to annual competency tests in key subjects. Make sure the tests are challenging and meaningful, and yank them out of home school if they fail (details like retakes and potential for later return to homeschooling can be worked out in committee).
This will allow parents to homeschool (as some have pointed out, there are times it's good or even necessary), but will ensure that homeschooled children are being given an education at least roughly on par with what they'd get in public school. Everybody wins. Want to inculcate religious notions in your home school? That's fine--just make sure you teach the school curriculum as well. That should bring home schools more on par with religious private schools, which would be a step up.
"It's called 'accountability', ma'am. Junior has to take the annual exam just like the other students. If he were in public school, the teachers would be responsible for teaching him. Since you've chosen to assume that role, you've also assumed the responsibility. We have materials and other resources available to help you teach the subject matter, but you must teach the subject matter."
Posted by: Leon | June 20, 2007 6:44 PM
Ok, those of you wanting to "do something" about homeschooling of this sort by getting it covered under child-abuse laws: while it's a satisfying thought, it's not a practical one.
ask yourself what the differences really are between the behavior outlined in the current example, and that of any other cult, and then ask yourself what makes you think it's not a practical issue.
the only thing not making it a "practical" issue, is the predominant attitude that if it's religion, no matter how insensible or abusive, it gets a free pass.
Cureholder made what I think is the most sensible suggsestion yet on this subject.
yes, and others have made similar suggestions in the past. In fact, a lot of states already have laws governing homeschooling in place that require standardized testing.
however, the behavior, as is clear from this example, goes far beyond just the issue of "homeschooling".
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 6:55 PM
. He just pretends not to be when they're around.
So maybe it's not as damaging as it seems? I hope?
that sounds pretty dysfunctional to me.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 6:59 PM
(er, trying again:)
He just pretends not to be when they're around.
So maybe it's not as damaging as it seems? I hope?
that sounds pretty dysfunctional to me.
(that's better.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 7:00 PM
I wanted to be a priest until I found out (at 12) that Catholic clergy couldn't marry. (Then I found out what happens to choirboys.)
I decided a long time ago (before I turned seven), that if Bible and Science clashed, Science had to be the winner. It helped that I had pro-evolutionist (or at least sensible) parents. Although my mother never did adequately explain why she didn't want me reading "Voyage of the Beagle" (she never said it was about evolution BTW, which is just as well because that wasn't the book to avoid if that was the case).
Posted by: Justin Moretti | June 20, 2007 7:01 PM
Ichthyic wrote:
Nice try at reading comprehension.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | June 20, 2007 7:02 PM
oh i comprehended alrighty, but if you think otherwise, please do then explain exactly how the two situations are comparable.
the boyscouts being a volunteer organization that any kid can leave at any time, and all.
good luck propping up that strawman.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 7:04 PM
Enough people have already pointed out how inappropriate, in both a linguistic and social sense, to call this 'child abuse' that I don't have to do it again.
But not enough people have called PZ a moron for using the term in this context, so:
You're a moron, PZ. Think before you type next time.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 20, 2007 7:19 PM
I'm not optimistic that we could regulate homeschooling in a way that reins in what we don't like and keeps hands off what we do like.
I don't like kids being taken out of school to avoid evolution, but I didn't want my kids to be in a room full of people saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day.
Each of my kids was homeschooled for a portion of junior high or highschool; one got into University of Chicago, the other is now at a highly selective public arts high school. There are communities, such as Berkeley CA and Highland Park, NJ, where there are numerous group activities for homeschoolers.
I like what Frank Zappa said long ago: "quit school, go to the library and educate yourself if you've got any guts."
Posted by: mgarelick | June 20, 2007 7:19 PM
Mind Rape should be as indictible as Body Rape but one rarely gets the chance to call 911 for the former. The poster who called about the JW child blew the whistle on both. Congratulations!
My Central Austin neighborhood is so Professorial and Jewish (rationalist) that we get a JW contingent about every three years. I enjoy a "stonewall" skeptic encounter with them from the "May I get you some iced tea" welcome to the very final folding of the tent by the missionaries. The last pair had a "Darwin vs. Bible" theme for which they "had all of the answers". They asked the first question and the old geologist answered. They were quite unprepared. The tent-folding came about quickly.
Posted by: Skeptic8 | June 20, 2007 7:22 PM
I always worry when I take my 8 y.o. son with me to hang signs or attend protests that I'm making him do something he's not intellectually capable of discerning for himself. Granted, the liberal virtues of peace, justice and equality are the air elementary school kids breathe (at least in public schools in the Pac NW), so none of it seems odd or forced to him, and he seems to enjoy it. But still, I wonder sometimes if I'm co-opting him into something he might not agree with when he's an adult. (I was roped into riding my bike around flying a banner for a Republican state rep. candidate when I was about the same age, something that strikes me as questionable now.)
But obviously these folks have no worries about their 7 y.o. son's ability to discern saints from sinners, or to interpret Scripture that even Ph.D.s in theology can't agree on.
Posted by: slim | June 20, 2007 7:31 PM
More accurately, a lot of people have made that assertion. I have yet to see it substantiated.
And if this isn't child abuse, what is it? The kid in question is clearly being exploited and gives every indication of being coerced verbally and emotionally to engage in this behavior for his parents' gratification, regardless of his wishes or its effect on him psychologically. On what grounds, precisely, would someone argue that this is not "child abuse" but that, say, taking pornographic pictures of children who are naked and posed sexually but not actually engaged in sexual behavior with adults is (other than T3H SECKS being involved in the latter)? I'm aware that the example is hyperbolic, but I am not aware of a relevant distinction unconnected to the "JEBUS GOOD, SECKS BAD" meme complex. Please find one, if you're going to make this argument (I'm assuming you believe there is one...)
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 20, 2007 7:31 PM
[Now, let me think; do I clarify before or after some brain-damaged idiot skims the above, jumps to the laughably wrong conclusion that I am not vigorously opposed to child pornography, and starts foaming at the mouth? Nah, I'll see how this plays out...]
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 20, 2007 7:36 PM
Oh yeah? Well, a member of my family was, as a child, raped and molested by three male members of her immediate family, regularly and repeatedly, over a period of nearly seven years. And you dare call a single case of іncestuous rape "real sexual abuse?"
Look. Don't think for a moment that I lack sympathy for your friend. Of course that is a horrible experience, and there's no question that what was done to her qualifies as abuse. But comparing stories is pointless, even counter-productive, for as you can see, I could argue that your friend has very little to complain about. Severity of abuse may matter in the individual case, but not in the definition. A maltreatment is either defined as abusive or it is not.
That is correct. Abuse is abuse. The question should not be, "Is this abuse as harmful as that abuse?" it should be "Is this type of mistreatment harmful enough to be defined as 'abuse'?"
So. Is it?
Posted by: Kseniya | June 20, 2007 7:36 PM
So. Is it?
Frankly, I think cureholder answered your question by example in the other thread on this subject quite effectively.
answer is yes.
this kind of behavior on the parents' part causes permanent disability.
how could it NOT be considered abusive by anyone who has actually spent time looking at the results of it?
I can point to a thread I created where others have shared their experiences, and all of them sound very much like what cureholder shared.
and all of them think it was abuse on the part of their parents, as well.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 7:43 PM
Ah well, looks like I stand corrected there. Perhaps I got carried away with a good idea before thinking whether it had been applied anywhere.
What makes me think it's not a practical idea? Enforceability, perhaps? How do you suggest we have the government regulate what ideas parents teach their children? And where do we draw the line--Lutheran ideas are ok but Baptist ones make you subject to arrest? And how do we check to make sure the ideas aren't being taught--do we require homeschool teaching sessions to be taped? This could become very Big Brother.
I never said it wasn't a good idea to prosecute parents who intentionally damage their children this way. I'm just saying it's not a practical one.
Posted by: Leon | June 20, 2007 7:44 PM
I got a good idea how to stop this: when you see the kid giving hellfire speech in public, call the cops and report him for noise pollution. The cops might take him into custody if his parents aren't around to keep an eye on him, but either way the constant complaints to local authorities might put a damper on their activities. At the very least, they'll get more attention from the authorities than they would want.
As for the ethics of this...the kid might have to make up his own mind. I don't think he'll make much of a living screaming at people on a street corner or appreciate his parents much if he has to get a GED at thirty or break free from the church into a very difficult world that has no use for a second-generation professional Jesus freak.
Posted by: Zbu | June 20, 2007 7:51 PM
What makes me think it's not a practical idea? Enforceability, perhaps? How do you suggest we have the government regulate what ideas parents teach their children?
apply exactly the same logic and reasoning applied to cults.
that simple.
if it doesn't fit under the current state guidelines (depending on your state) for what constitutes a cult, it ain't.
it's just that few state agencies are willing to push this button, only out of fear of backlash, not because the laws aren't applicable.
so if by "impractical" you mean, "too much fear to apply the law equally", then yup, impractical it is.
things change, though.
there are several test cases relating to this issue that shouldn't be too hard to google up.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 7:52 PM
for those that want to continue this kind of debate once this thread sinks into the sunset, I did make a thread long ago to do so over on the After the Bar Closes area on PT:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=2055;
feel free to add anything you wish to it. you have to register, but that's only to control for trolls.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 7:57 PM
But whats worse? This or a mother who forces her little kids to go to sports or beauty contests and the like? Either way it screws the little kids up.
Dutch Vigilante - In the first place, what makes you think it's always women who do this?
Secondly, quite a few kids have rather pleasant childhood memories of playing sports or (though it's not quite PC to say so) getting all dressed up and going to pageants (or similarly girly activities).
In fairness, this kid may eventually look fondly on his days of accosting and haranguing total strangers in public, and, with his parents' (and the more lunkheaded sector of the community's) support, attempting to shame them about not enjoying as much of God's approval as him and his family.
However, I'm not so optimistic about his memories of (as is clear from his preaching) his parents convincing him that he'd be eaten by worms in Hell if he didn't do what they told him.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | June 20, 2007 8:02 PM
He still has a point, and you know it full well.
Posted by: David Marjanović | June 20, 2007 8:04 PM
Programming a child into a demented cultist is abuse.
Except the parents are probably equally as out of touch with reality.
That's doesn't let them off the hook however.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 20, 2007 8:38 PM
There are lots of behaviors that fit that description, but I'll bet you don't object to the ones you don't feel are harmful.
Just because an aspect of the parent-child relationship is harmful does not qualify it as abuse.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 20, 2007 8:51 PM
Then what IS necessary to qualify a behavior as "abuse"?
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 20, 2007 8:54 PM
Legal definition of child abuse
That's a good place to start, I think.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 20, 2007 8:56 PM
better explore each state's definitions while you're at it, Cal.
then go google up the test cases on classifying religious indoctrination as cult behavior.
you've got a LONG way to go to prove your point, if that's what you want to do.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 9:02 PM
I hate to break this to you, Ichthyic, but I don't have to prove that this isn't child abuse, because the burden of proof isn't on me. Given the vast space of potential parent-child interaction, the abusiveness of a particular action is what needs to be demonstrated. We do not condemn all actions that we cannot conclusively show are nonabusive.
YOU'VE got a long way to go to prove your point. If that's what you actually want to do, instead of whinging about how religious indoctrination is so terrible.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 20, 2007 9:07 PM
you're missing it, idiot.
the points ALREADY been proven.
again, show me how this is any different than cult behavior, and you have a place to start.
showing me the feds haven't caught up on legal issues is like showing me that Strom Thurman hasn't caught up with current legal issues regarding racism.
sorry, but you're the one pleading the case of ignorance here, not the rest of us.
care to explain why?
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 9:12 PM
YES, this is child abuse.
Posted by: Steve | June 20, 2007 9:16 PM
Given the vast space of potential parent-child interaction, the abusiveness of a particular action is what needs to be demonstrated.
action resulting in permanent disability counts as abusive.
again, you've certainly seen several examples of mental abuse causing permanent disability, so you countering that this isn't a case of abuse flies in the face of the very examples presented in this very forum.
let alone the millions outside of this forum.
you seem to be in denial, AFAICT.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 20, 2007 9:18 PM
I see. Would you also reject to our referring to the act of refusing to hire a person as an employee on account of their race as "racial discrimination" if it wasn't specifically proscribed by the laws against such?
Posted by: Azkyroth |