I cannot see the future, therefore I do not know for certain that harm will be caused. However, I have every reasons to thinkn that this will be the case.
What reasons? You've cited examples of parents who hold views far more dogmatic than TL does, for instance your example of "theistic parents witholding medical treatment." Has TL made any comment you feel to be anti-science or anti-medicine? To the contrary, he accepts modern medicine to the same degree you do.
You've made the gross and inapproptiate error of assuming that all theists think alike, when in fact the term "theist" covers only one thing - a belief that god exists. That's it. That's all you have to believe to be a theist. As for the rest there's as great a diversity of opinion amoung theists as there is amoung atheists.
Religious PARENTS are harmful to children.
Woah, that's something way different than what you've been saying. Sure, some religious parents have been harmful to their children. Some atheist parents have been, too. But what you're saying is tantamount to saying "Australians abuse their children, so no Australian can be allowed to be a parent."
Moving the goalposts isn't going to help you here. You need to prove that religion is the factor that leads to abuse - that religion is itself abusive - in order to support your statements. Simply citing parents who, while religious, hold views drastically different than the views TL has espoused is irrelevant and fallacious.
I maintain the TL's expressed intent to isolate themselves among a like-minded community that will never challenge any of this dangerous dogma
What dogma, exactly? The only dogma I've heard so far has come from you, assuming the worst about TL's beliefs despite his statements to the contrary.
It seems to me there has been a lot of research in this area, mostly aimed at rates of incidence pregnancy in children. The majority appears to me to encourage the idea that the earlier and less moralistically the subject is addressed the healthier the childs appreciation of sexuality.
This may well be true, and your article *suggests* that this conclusion might be warranted.
The jump from this paragraph to everything else you said is huge. So is using the Jehovah's Witness resistance to blood transfusions as a general reason to oppose religious parents.
You might be aware that authorities already override JW's convictions on this matter, choosing the child's welfare over the parents' convictions. That hardly is justification for overriding every parent's conviction if it can be called religious.
An attentive parent should have very little problem knowing when to begin a child's sex education, and how far to take it, religious or otherwise. I can't imagine that letting the government choose is a good alternative.
Your assumptions are what lie at the heart of racism. Every religious person endangers their child's life, because some Jehovah's Witness parents withhold transfusion. Generally, very little of what you said about me is remotely accurate, but I'm a theist, so I'm just like every other theist. Children must be rescued from all theists, even if very little of what you believe in general about theists is true about me.
What's worse, is that I am pretty extreme as far as theists go, and you still have very little right about me. Almost nothing of what you said applies to the average Catholic, Episcopalian, or even any of the more liberal Baptists, who, on the sort of moral matters we're discussing, tend to think no differently than the average non-religious person.
By the way, I totally agree with the sentiments expressed in the paragraph above, except for the part about "the earlier." All your study addressed was starting earlier than 13, which seems sort of obvious to me, anyway.
Thanks for the comments. I don't think I mind being disagreed with. I don't even mind being told I'm flat out wrong. For some reason, it irritates the daylights out of me to say things and have everything I say misinterpreted, seemingly on purpose. (I don't really think it's on purpose.) If a person is going to disagree with me, disagree with me, not some stereotype. If I wanted to defend the stereotype, I'd live like the stereotype.
I expect people like you to argue with me, because I already know you disagree with me, and that's what a debate forum is for. I enjoy all discussions more when I have the upper hand :-), so I haven't always enjoyed our discussions, lol, but I've had problems with very few people on this board. In fact, your vehemence (I hope that's not a derogatory word) can be refreshing. I don't ever have to wonder what your point is, and across the internet, it can be hard to gauge where people are coming from.
So, thanks again.
Oh, and Crash, your analysis about the authority/conspiracy thing and the rest of that post was pretty insightful. All I picked up was a general feeling, and it was the same as when I was stupid enough to try posting on the "Christians Unite" board.
Sorry, Contra, for talking about you third person, but his assessment was very insightful, and you ought to listen to it.
quote: The fact that breasts are a sexual signal in the West is deeply ingrained in almost everyone by the time they reach adulthood is not the same as it being intrinsically so that breasts are a sexual signal. It is completely arbitrary whether breasts are considered a sexual signal. It all depends upon the culture you are in.
I notice you did say 'almost everyone', but I'd have to contest the 'depend upon the culture you are in' bit.
Only on the basis of my own views -- which are basically that it is situation and not state of (un)dress that affects whether I view a situation sexually or not.
Most men (that have expressed a preference within my ear-shot) actually find partially clothed women (in a sexualised setting) far more erotic than naked ones.
Even if you extend culture to deal with a single family unit, my family on the whole is quite prudish even over simlple nudity ... so I dunno why my views are so different to the family I grew up with and it's surrounding culture.