New Study Contradicts Religious Bias

[Huckleberry]

Jesus preached a God who “desired mercy, not sacrifice.”

Protecting children from harm does not mean being abusive to them.

When a child runs out into the street, many parents grab the child and hit them several times and say things like “You are bad.”

What does the child pick up after hearing this? That they are bad and deserve to be hit.

Other parents remove their child from danger, kneel down and hug them and look into their eyes and say:

“I was really, really scared when I saw you run into the street. I am afraid because if a car would hit you, it might cause you to be badly hurt or even die.”

Hitting a child or yelling at them “to be kind” only makes problems.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with what I said or the OP. The most sense I can make out of it is some poorly assembled attempt to impute child abuse to...someone or other. Me? Religious people? Anyone who points out the study is bogus or that Purex is being a prejudicial bigot? I dunno. :idunno:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Redistributing wealth when it has become very badly distributed is a liberal idea. But not punishing is not. Liberals want punishments to work in deterring crime and rehabilitating offenders, conservatives want to punish offenders as retribution. Liberals see that both have their place, while conservatives are blinkered and see only the one function of their 'justice'.

You are quite mistaken about the purpose of punishment.

The purpose of capital punishment is to rid the society of both the evil offender and the spread of the evil intent.

Deuteronomy 21:21 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.​

The purpose of the punishments for theft is restoration of what was stolen plus a reasonable amount for pain and suffering to deter the thief and others from stealing.

Exodus 22:1,4 1 If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. . . . 4 If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ***, or sheep; he shall restore double.​

There is no rehabilitation involved in punishment for crimes.

 

[PureX]

:yawn: "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth." ~ Bob Enyart

As a reminder PureX is number 37 on Satan, Inc. (TOL Heretics list) in "The 'Jesus is not God' people (Non-trinitarians) category. :burnlib:

“I’m punitive because I’m kind. I want bad behavior punished...Can morality exist objectively if there is no God--the question [that] they do not follow.” ~ Dennis Prager Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10, Nu 35:31

See:

God and the Death Penalty by Bob Enyart

You are a moral relativist (Eccl 10:2, Jn 8:44, 10:10). :reals: I am not (1 Jn 3:14). :straight:

Pffffft!

 

[gcthomas]

You are quite mistaken about the purpose of punishment.

The purpose of capital punishment is to rid the society of both the evil offender and the spread of the evil intent.

You seem to have mixed up punishment in general work capital punishment specifically. Careless.

[irrelevant Bible references]

Has no-one told you that Bible quotes are not very useful in persuading an atheist that your reasoning is worth adopting?

There is no rehabilitation involved in punishment for crimes.

Not if you want the prisoners to return to society more dangerous than when they left. But if you want to make society safer you need to make the prisoners into more productive and better members of society before you release them. That's rehabilitation. Your call. It is your town they will end up in, not mine.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'd like to correct what I believe is a misconception

religious and conservatives are not necessarily against the redistribution of wealth, they're against the forced redistribution of wealth by government

studies have shown that those who identify as conservative and religious give significantly more to charity than those who identify as liberal

There is definitely a misconception that needs to be corrected.

"Giving to charity" is altruism, not charity, though most people have never been taught the difference.
Charity is a personal sharing of what you have with others you know that are in need.
It is an act that rewards both the giver and the receiver.

Altruism is done with no reward, usually anonymously, and only benefits the recipient.

Altruism is a secular ideology coined by Auguste Comte between 1830 and 1842.
It influenced the work of Karl Marx.
Altruism comes from Auguste Comte's phrase "vivre pour autrui" which translates to "live for others".

 

[aikido7]

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with what I said or the OP. The most sense I can make out of it is some poorly assembled attempt to impute child abuse to...someone or other. Me? Religious people? Anyone who points out the study is bogus or that Purex is being a prejudicial bigot? I dunno. :idunno:

The title of the thread referred to a new study that concluded that children brought up in patriarchal, fundamentalist, authoritarian and obedience-based families tend to turn out like they were raised.

Child abuse is profoundly important, especially in today’s world. All abusers abuse others. All the tyrannical dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. were horrifically abused as children and unwittingly passed on that abuse to others--including the people living in their nation.

We now know how to break the cycle of abuse. Nothing prevents us from making better choices for a better world.

 

[Ktoyou]

The title of the thread referred to a new study that concluded that children brought up in patriarchal, fundamentalist, authoritarian and obedience-based families tend to turn out like they were raised.

:nono: You are a hopeless little dweeb who has allowed your own will to be submerged by those others who want children to think only one way. Are YOU really such a baby?

 

[genuineoriginal]

You seem to have mixed up punishment in general work capital punishment specifically. Careless.

I assume you meant to use the word "with" instead of the word "work"?
Careless.

Has no-one told you that Bible quotes are not very useful in persuading an atheist that your reasoning is worth adopting?

Yes, I have been told that Atheists are too stupid to understand Bible verses.

Not if you want the prisoners to return to society more dangerous than when they left.

Who said anything about prisoners or about removing people from society?

I am speaking of punishment, not of the civil rights abuse called prison, which is really nothing more than a training ground for creating more effective criminals.

Prisons should only house political prisoners and debtors.

People committing crimes need to pay restitution directly to the victim (not to the political machine) for theft or damaged property, or be whipped and then released if the criminal deserves it, or be put to death if the criminal committed any capital crime.

 

[Huckleberry]

The title of the thread referred to a new study that concluded that children brought up in patriarchal, fundamentalist, authoritarian and obedience-based families tend to turn out like they were raised.

Child abuse is profoundly important, especially in today’s world. All abusers abuse others. All the tyrannical dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, etc. were horrifically abused as children and unwittingly passed on that abuse to others--including the people living in their nation.

We now know how to break the cycle of abuse. Nothing prevents us from making better choices for a better world.

Except that the study is shown to be bogus, so what exactly are you talking about? Are you going to be like Purex and argue that religious people are mean, therefore the study is right even though it's wrong?

Well, it seems so. The last two paragraphs of your post do exactly that. Imputing child abuse with no basis whatsoever but your own prejudicial bigotry.

 

[gcthomas]

People committing crimes need to pay restitution directly to the victim (not to the political machine) for theft or damaged property, or be whipped and then released if the criminal deserves it, or be put to death if the criminal committed any capital crime.

Criminal sanctions have never focused on restitution that may be gained in the civil courts.

 

[Dialogos]

Empathy is not what the study was referring to, however. It was referring to religion increasing the children's desire to see the "offender" punished, or punished more severely, for their offense.

And they drew from this that religious kids were"meaner?" Is "meaner" a scientific designation?

Why does letting a child get away with hurting others constitute compassion while holding children accountable for thier behavior constitute being "mean?"

This sounds very much like the "your the meanest mom in the world" objection by a child who got caught and held accountable for wrong behavior.

The study was specifically referring to an increased punitive desire in children of religious parents. And further, the study found that the longer they'd been exposed to the religiosity, the more pronounced was this tendency.

And if the children of "religious" parents had been more permissive, the interpretation of that data would have been used to suggest that "religious" kids have a weaker sense of justice.

I am pretty sure the religious kids didn't have a fair shot on this question.

The study was not claiming that non-religious children were less empathetic, which seems to be what you're trying to imply, here. And which is something the writers of the study noticed about religious people in general: that they tend to believe and assert that their religion makes them kinder than non-religious people. Just as you seem to be exemplifying by your post.

Maybe that's the whole problem, these researches are trying to quantify what they don't understand.

First they lump Islamic, Christian and Judaism, Hindu and Muslim into one bucket, totally disregarding the very notable differences in the ethics of each of these and then played the "dictator game" in an attempt to collect relevant data.

Second, the criteria for determing "meanness" appears to be the degree to which a child sees some harmful behaviors as deserving of discipline and whether or not they are willing to share stickers.

I would argue the the first question is a question of justice, and the second is wholly irrelevant.

How many "stickers" have you shared with others today, PureX?

I don't think this overrides the verifiable reality that "religious" adults are far more generous than non religious adults in terms of charitable giving.

Third, what this study overlooks, and I think you may be also, is that religion is about the existence of God, and what He has said about Himself and about us.

If there is no God, then there is no need for sharing stickers, no need to see any actions as unjust and no cause for mercy towards anyone for anything.

 

[aikido7]

:nono: You are a hopeless little dweeb who has allowed your own will to be submerged by those others who want children to think only one way. Are YOU really such a baby?

Your name calling (“hopeless little dweeb”) as well as your guesses at my intentions are what is “childish.”

It is interesting to find someone who believes that everyone only “thinks in one way.” I guess I am surprised to hear that coming from YOU.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Criminal sanctions have never focused on restitution that may be gained in the civil courts.

Criminal sanctions that do not include restitution directly to the person whose property was stolen or damaged but replace that with imprisonment is a perversion of justice.

 

[aikido7]

Except that the study is shown to be bogus, so what exactly are you talking about? Are you going to be like Purex and argue that religious people are mean, therefore the study is right even though it's wrong?

Well, it seems so. The last two paragraphs of your post do exactly that. Imputing child abuse with no basis whatsoever but your own prejudicial bigotry.

I am going to stand up for good parenting. And the scientific and sociological research that backs me up.

Those who believe in a jealous and putative God of justice do not communicate with their children very well. There is often a lot of patriarchal authoritarianism and obedience-based disrespect and unfairness.

Instead of merely judging scientific findings as “bogus,” I just wish you had the wherewithal, the time or the inclination to criticize the conclusions on its own merits.

My personal opinion is that there are always better options than hitting. The argument that occasional swats are OK just doesn’t fly for me.

There is always a discipline response that will teach your child to behavior better AND respect their dignity as human beings at the same time.

Numerous studies have revealed that if we were raised with corporal punishment we will most likely raise our children the same way. What we know about being parents generally comes from the parents that raised us.

Hitting children happens more often in the south among poor families. This is the so-called Bible Belt. Fundamentalists and evangelicals are not known for their receptivity to new and better ideas. Sometimes it takes a couple of generations.

 

[Ktoyou]

Your name calling (“hopeless little dweeb”) as well as your guesses at my intentions are what is “childish.”

It is interesting to find someone who believes that everyone only “thinks in one way.” I guess I am surprised to hear that coming from YOU.

You let me down far worse! I do not think anyone thinks the same way, as most of my posts attest. I think liberalism kills individuality, yes, however, base perversion is more the offspring of a base godless character, mixed with secular liberalism.

You have marked the end to your denial that you are indeed a pervert.

Sodomy is actually enjoyable for many couples. I began to learn about this in my late adolescent.

A little dweeb is redeemable, but a hopeless one is not, and you are hopeless, as you admit, fancying sodomy. which is far worse than being a little dweeb.

 

[aikido7]

You let me down far worse! I do not think anyone thinks the same way, as most of my posts attest. I think liberalism kills individuality, yes, however, base perversion is more the offspring of a base godless character, mixed with secular liberalism.

You have marked the end to your denial that you are indeed a pervert.



A little dweeb is redeemable, but a hopeless one is not, and you are hopeless, as you admit, fancying sodomy. which is far worse than being a little dweeb.

Noted, but my comment still stands. I was raised in a home that did not name-call, insult or blame others. I cannot imagine parents who do not teach or model this behavior.

 

[aikido7]

Going for obedience with your children?

THINK AGAIN

***This is how you get obedient adults who cannot think for themselves.

***Get kids who cannot stand up for themselves and are likely to be taken advantage of.

***They’re also capable of cruel and sometimes terrible acts, because they blame others for their actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

 

[Huckleberry]

I am going to stand up for good parenting. And the scientific and sociological research that backs me up.

Those who believe in a jealous and putative God of justice do not communicate with their children very well. There is often a lot of patriarchal authoritarianism and obedience-based disrespect and unfairness.

Instead of merely judging scientific findings as “bogus,” I just wish you had the wherewithal, the time or the inclination to criticize the conclusions on its own merits.

My personal opinion is that there are always better options than hitting. The argument that occasional swats are OK just doesn’t fly for me.

There is always a discipline response that will teach your child to behavior better AND respect their dignity as human beings at the same time.

Numerous studies have revealed that if we were raised with corporal punishment we will most likely raise our children the same way. What we know about being parents generally comes from the parents that raised us.

Hitting children happens more often in the south among poor families. This is the so-called Bible Belt. Fundamentalists and evangelicals are not known for their receptivity to new and better ideas. Sometimes it takes a couple of generations.

You continue to ignore the fact that the study has already been ripped to shreds. And not only here, you should know, but even in the comments section of the original story the OP draws from. The study is bogus. Continuing to pretend it has some merit doesn't help you.

Likewise, continuing to go on and on about child abuse, as if that were in any way relevant to the bogus study or the thread itself. You might as well go ahead and say, "Yeah, but religious people abuse their children, therefore the bogus study is right even though it's wrong."

You guys succeed only in revealing yourselves to be prejudicial bigots which, while entertainingly ironic, is something you'd be better off not being.

 

[kmoney]

I used that language in reference to these characteristics as we find them here on TOL.

What maximum and excessive punishments do you see on TOL? Besides the death penalty for homosexuality.

No, but I do think it's representative of contemporary absolutist religiosity.

ok.

What you and others are ignoring is the difference between wanting to stop the abuse, and wanting to punish the abuser.

The religionists on this thread, and in the study, presumed that those who do not want to punish the abuser, did not care about stopping the abuse. It seems to be inconceivable to them that the abuse could be stopped by any other means, or for any other reason, than punishing the abuser. And because this is inconceivable to them, they just assumed the worst of the non-religious people here and in the study (just as the study asserted). And the exact same thing occurs on TOL all the time. For the religionist, punishment is presumed automatic. For the non-religionist, it is not.

You are talking about ways to handle interpersonal harm other than punishment of the offender, but did the study give other options? I'm looking through the study again and I'm not seeing. If the study only gave options of "no punishment" and "punishment" then it doesn't seem fair to criticize someone for choosing punishment instead of another option. You also don't know if the non-religious children chose 'no punishment' because they wanted to do something else. I think we are missing some important information on how these questions were posed.

And to repeat, I think an important distinction is between harm to yourself and harm to others. I do think Christians should show a strong desire to forgive and show mercy when the harm to to themselves. But when the harm is directed toward someone else, who am I to make that decision? Mercy would have to be shown by the offended.

Likewise, for the religionist, judgment is passed on the "abuser" automatically, as refraining from such judgment is inconceivable for them. Yet to the non-religious, refraining from judgment is much more commonplace. Yet again, because the religionists can't conceive of this possibility, they assume that the non-religious restraint must be a lack of empathy, when it's not.

How would a children refrain from judgment in this? I don't think the non-religious children even did. The study is talking about judging the level of meanness. Non-religious saw it as the least mean, Christians were middle, and Muslims the meanest. Every child made some judgment. Or, what kind of judgment are you referring to? What possibility are the religious children not considering?

Yes.

It's not disappointing because it's kids and stickers. It's disappointing because we all know that when they grow up, it will be EVERYTHING ELSE that they won't want to share, not just some meaningless stickers.

You don't know that. How do you extrapolate stickers in a study to EVERYTHING ELSE? I saw you mention redistribution of wealth, but that's not the same as showing personal charity/altruism.

 

[Ktoyou]

Going for obedience with your children?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

This is very old and most freshmen psychology students are exposed to this. You do not know because you have not been a student of the field.