YouTube Child Abuse
I have mixed feelings about this recent video posting to YouTube, because a child this age really has no idea what she's talking about. However, I see kids every day in advertising, promoting all sorts of products, and that seems to be OK with everyone. I've also seen children this young giving wonderful testimonials in churches, and that was always cheered and applauded as a fabulously positive thing. I've even seen some young kids preaching before, and at the very least, most Christians I knew thought seeing a kid preach was extremely cute.
Bill O'Reilly got all up in arms about this short YouTube video, I think, because he was mentioned by name in it. So, in response, he called in an expert on his program to accuse the girl's parents of being child abusers. I'm not sure if that's slander or not, but, regardless, I don't recall O'Reilly having a conniption about the emphatic and emotional testimonials given by the overly excited, evangelically zealous children in the Jesus Camp movie. Perhaps using children to promote a message designed by adults is only a questionable practice when anti-religious rhetoric is involved?
I think this is a controversial topic. The gloves are off. What do you think?
Bill O'Reilly got all up in arms about this short YouTube video, I think, because he was mentioned by name in it. So, in response, he called in an expert on his program to accuse the girl's parents of being child abusers. I'm not sure if that's slander or not, but, regardless, I don't recall O'Reilly having a conniption about the emphatic and emotional testimonials given by the overly excited, evangelically zealous children in the Jesus Camp movie. Perhaps using children to promote a message designed by adults is only a questionable practice when anti-religious rhetoric is involved?
I think this is a controversial topic. The gloves are off. What do you think?
Comments
You educate your children a bit beyond what most people teach them and all of a sudden you're being accused of child abuse. It's happen two times already at this school. The first time it was because he balls up his fists when he gets angry and he drew monsters and ghosts.
This little girl in the video, she's cute and she may or may not totally grasp what she's talking about but it was funny non-the-less. There isn't anymore harm coming to her from doing this video and repeating what she's been told (or reading) as there is in exposing children to the bible, biblical movies, and false gods. If this video is child abuse, than so is taking your child to church or making him/her watch things like "The Passion of the Christ."
Why, all of a sudden, has educating your child be come a bad thing? And who exactly has the authority on what is appropriate information for what age? It's all really frustrating for me. I've had to ask my son to be someone else while at school.
They don't want him to say hell because it's considered a cus word at school. As well as butt, booty, and penis. He's five guys, only five, and they expect him to behave all day long.
I seriously think he's bored out of his mind also. I don't think he's "gifted" but he is beyond most of the kids at school, he knows more about evolution than his own teacher. It's all really sad and I'm tired of being condemned for teaching my son the facts.
Btw, he knows nothing about sexual intercourse, just reproduction. We don't plan on talking about sexual intercourse till at least ten years old. I think that will be about the time he will be interested in things like that and I'd rather him know the facts than learn from some other dumb kid.
Not only is this a fairly cogent (but, to us, maybe a little obvious) point... she also looks like my GF looked at her age.
I like the song at the end, too.
This girl is obviously reading from a script prepared by adults, and so may not be as indoctrinated as a christian kid would be - and if she has been 'indoctrinated' it seems to be toward freethinking, so there's not really any complaint that can be made against that...
Her points are valid, and the subject is important, but if it was the adult writer saying these same things it would be just another nobody screaming into cyberspace.
So maybe the adults behind this are simply pulling a publicity stunt, to call attention to the topic in a way every one will have an opinion on?
So, then maybe the only way someone like O'Reilly can ignore the issues it raises is by pulling the child abuse card?
I have read (can't confirm) that she is Lakota Sioux. I had childhood friends that were Oglala. If you know their history and culture, a child this perceptive of the political world would come as no surprise.
Atheist mommy, the next time they say anything, tell them he was just quoting words from the buybull.
The source of nasty garbage words are dripping from the buybull such as:
ass, bastard, bitch, damn, prostitute, whore, harlot, jezebel, shit, sin, savior, god, jesus, angels, heaven, hell, bezelbub, emmanual, jehovah, christ, virgin birth, satan, holy spirit, soul, ghosts, salvation, santify, fool, anointed, prayer, baptism, saved, gospel, faith, prophet, spirit, circumcision, deliverance, evil, hypocrisy, iniquity, slaves, hate, sabbath, zealot, judgment, hardened heart, redemption, wrath, war, etc.
I have an IQ that goes off the gauge, and growing up was hell. My teachers and even my own parents despised me. At church I might as well have been a leper. I knew by the age of ten that thinking was like being fat or ugly. I was not welcome.
I wish all the best for you and your son. He is going to be set apart from the rest of humanity. He will not be able to join in with the fashionable dipshits. He will not date the pretty girls.
The people who post here have similar experiences.....I have no doubt of that, especially when it comes to religion. We tried to be like everyone else, didn't we? We tried to talk like them and think like them, and it did not work. I honestly hope that your son does what works for him.
I don't think my husband would let me even if I tried to discourage him from learning. And your right, I did my best to fit in when I was a kid. It just seem to get harder and harder as I got older. Until one day, I just finally gave in and started living life for myself. And yes, that is what I want for him too. This is part of the reason we named him Epicurus.
I took a video of him and his reaction of the 8 year old girl.
Here it is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvCqZ0-JIHk
And what's even better is the fact O'Reilly did the impossible... he made himself look even more foolish, insane, and moronic than usual. An eight year old girl took his ass to the woodshed, rhetorically anyway, and then he drives millions of people onto youtube looking for the video? It's like the time an eleven year old girl kicked my ass in Warcraft... except I tried to keep that secret.
Child abuse... Man, is the joke ever on that asshole.
That concluding song was great. For inquiring minds, here is the band's myspace:
http://www.myspace.com/thebastardfairies
Right?
Yet neither O'Reilley nor the woman speaker once addressed the facts that countless millions of murders have been carried out in the name of religion, while not once that i have ever heard has any murders been carried out by video gamers.
While alot of what the girl says can be reasonably suggested that she does not understand what she is saying... It can also be said about children that bare testimony in churches or preach can be subjected to the same reasoning.
Another point is that the girl obviously dressed up for the camera, suggesting she is acting a part, and to hold her parents accountable for what she acts on camera is also indicting parents of children actors who act on stage, television and movies.
The message whether you like it or not is based on historical facts, while the assumptions are debatable.
Notice anything significant that was omitted in the portions O'Reilly chose to air? O'Reilly completely omitted any portion of the video that mentioned O'Reilly by name. The scumbag didn't want his viewers to realize he was the actual target of the video and learn it was a personal attack on him. The asshole is trying to act like he's just someone concerned about the 8 year old girl. That's probably why O'Reilly didn't mention this was on You Tube, he didn't want his viewers to go there and see what the video was really about.
The subject video has a strong sense of hatred and anger. Its intent is not entertainment but rather “shock” and manipulation. There are also many instances of unadulterated baloney. An example is that “violence is not new” - gee, ya think? But, this does not make it ok, especially as entertainment! And what about the “educationally significant” TV Programs, Family Guy and South Park? I must admit that they are, sometimes, stupid-funny, but educational? Give me a break!
Now let’s do politics. This youngster boldly states that “the Republican Party is killing innocent people in the name of religion”. With this line of thinking, she should have also stated that the Democrats are all guilty of child abuse by killing the most defenseless people in the world, that is, unborn children! Neither statement is true, of course. Unfortunately, what she said about religion-related, atrocities is true. Perhaps there should be a warning label on every Bible sold.
At the risk of agreeing with Bill on one point, I do concede that much of the anger and hatred conveyed in the clip is also present in Rap “Music” and some Video games. If you disagree, then you either have not paid attention to what is being “Rapped” and played, or your sense of right and wrong is seriously warped. (ex: Get Rich or Die Trying, Grand Theft Auto).
We are told that how we react to media violence is the problem. If we see it as fantasy, and can separate it from reality, then it may not be so bad. However, many youngsters get lost in the virtual reality and become numb to the violent acts spoken of in some music as well as the horrific images being visually prosecuted on their TV screens. In the industry’s defense, the “media rating system” is supposed help kids and parents purchase age-appropriate material, although I would argue that one should never become “mature enough” to find graphic violence entertaining.
Bottom line: Parents who buy or allow their young kids to buy “mature” and/or explicit games and music are as irresponsible as the parents of this little girl who set her up with this rambling script and practiced for hours to “get-it-right”. How, then, can we hope to teach our children “empathy” unless we limit their exposure to the violence and hatred pandered on them as entertaining and educational?
Child abuse? Probably not, but nevertheless disgusting – all of it!
As for the intelligence of children and what the schools think, I came across the same thing, being caught in the middle of parents (who were abusive as it was) trying to raise me one way and the schools saying they can't educate me, that it's up to the schools to do that. Both were wrong in what they were trying to do, really.
I read somewhere where schools are meant to dumb down and control kids so that they grow up to be dimwhitted corporate slaves and cannon fodder who WILL NEVER THINK to fight back for reform or change, or for freedom to be all they can be.
And a reason they keep "kids" from reproducing at a certian age isn't because kids can't "handle the responsibilty". Hell, some adults obvuiously can't! It's because they want to be sure the kid is so indoctrined good so that they will teach their kids to do the same instead of rebelling against the system. That way if a kid rebells, the schools know they can gang up not one but TWO parents against the kid and pressure them into mindless unquestioning obedience.
Then there are those that shouldn't go having kids after all. At ANY age.
People should teach their kids to think for themselves and reason for themselves, and express themselves properly. But the system seems against this. After all, you can't control a free spirit and make it do what you want it to.
One thing that has really shocked me when reading the testimonials posted on this site is just how young so many of the writers were when they were cajoled, coerced, emotionally blackmailed and even bullied into becoming Christians by their parents. Some people were as young as five years old at the time.
Christians from many Protestant denominations pour scorn on infant baptism, then pounce on their own helpless kids as soon as possible.
The bible verse 'Suffer the little children...' (Mark 10, 14) has a lot to answer for. Actually, the word 'suffer' here means 'allow' or 'let', but many kids have actually been made to SUFFER for it.
Let all parents: Christians, ex-christians, and whoever, refrain from putting any pressure on their children, and 'suffer' them to be themselves.
As far as the issue of hate goes: First, there's a big difference between what the 'jesus camp' people do and what these parents did. Fundamentalist religions knowingly attempt to brainwash pre-schoolers into accepting their beliefs. These parents are presenting their child with the idea that this is very wrong. Now, granted children at this age are very impressionable, but are you saying that these parents are guilty of brainwashing their child into think that brainwashing children is wrong? Do you see the difference?
Second, the world is full of things that cause hate: war, racism, corruption, etc., etc. As much as we would all like to insulate our children from these things, sooner or later they are going to learn about them. Now, what lesson have these parents taught their little girl about dealing with things that make you mad? Witch hunts? Suicide bombings? Holy wars? No, they have taught her to speak out - to let your feelings and your opinions be heard (even if you have to voice those opinions through a 5 years old). I think that this is a wonderful lesson.
I think that this is a wonderful video. I see nothing abusive about it - in fact, I'll bet a lot of kids would give anything to get to spend an afternoon making a movie with Mommy/Daddy (and she got to say naughty words to boot!)
Anglicans
Eastern Orthodox
Episcopel
Methodist
Luteran
Presbyterian
Roman Catholic
United Church of Christ
Baptism by Other Religions:
Mormon = 8 years Old.
Catholic = 7 years old.
"On July 17, 2001, the Roman Catholic Church officially declared baptisms performed by the Latter Day Saints or Mormons to be invalid, due to a difference in beliefs concerning the Holy Trinity, and the nature of God."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism
"Mikvah" was a Jewish ritual, used to purify a Jewish member if they ever became spiritually defiled; coming into contact with a dead corpse, etc. Thus, whenever a Jew became defiled, they went through the ritual to become clean.
Christendom, later on, with the belief that all of humanity is "defiled", used the Old Testament ritual as a means to cleanse. Some religions want the baptism of a child, as soon as possible, and then others, depending on how they interpret the meaning of the baptism "ritual", have it later on.
A religion has to program its children at an early age, before they ask questions that the religious leaders can't answer.
No, I don’t see the sarcasm no matter how many times I watch.
No, I also don’t see the difference between Jesus Camp and this Kid-Rant as both involve “brainwashing”. I’m sure this kid did not make this video on her own. I’m also responsibly sure that she will act out, or preach, this script to and for her friends upon request – maybe even at the Mall or on a street corner.
Some think this video is great. The fundies think the Jesus Camp video is great. Any parent that would send their kids to Jesus Camp is probably creating the same type of home environment that this little girl lives in, that is, one in which those who don’t think as you do are vilified. Both are very destructive toward leaning, free thought and a peaceable society.
I still say both videos are wearisome.
You and others are entitled to your opinions, of course, and I’m not the least bit offended by this – it’s all good, besides, I’m just here for the Bub-Light!
A parent has the right, and competes with society to teach their child. However, the parent has a responsibility to teach the child the consequences of individual action - society doesn't.
If a child is not old enough to understand how to interpret a cause-effect relationship between their actions and the following consequences from society (whether actions are considered morally right, wrong, or neutral), then the child is being road tested - by their parent.
I don't have a child at the moment, thus, I am not speaking from a parental point of view - however, I was on the receiving end of programming that garnered me much disruption from an ignorant society as I grew up.
Parents that can teach their children, should. Those who can't, shouldn't have children.
This comes from someone who by their own volition, chooses to make a statement, understanding the consequences of such action - as it should be.
I posted a reply to this video by video taping my son's reaction to her video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvCqZ0-JIHk). Do you seriously think watching this video is going to damage a kid in any way?
Here's why I did that....
I knew my son had no idea of what she was talking about. We have yet to teach him about politics. I didn't really have him reply I just wanted everyone to see his reaction. If you watch the video you see that when the girl comes on he smiles. Why? Because he likes the little girl and he can relate. As it goes on you see a confused look. He realized that some of the things she's saying are bad. How? One of his comments to me was "Mommy, she said ass." He saw this as wrong because he's been taught that kids are not suppose to say cuss words like ass and fuck.
There is a video of two boys reaction to this same video, which is another reason why I posted my own video. If you watch that video and can get past the obvious religiousity, you see that these boys (although one is a bit older) had the same type of reaction. The older boy does most of the talking but still has a look of confusion and realizes that some of what she said is bad. For example, in his reply he continues to say "she's back talking."
My point? Children aren't instrested in politics and don't get the seriousness behind the video. They only understand what they have been taught. So, this video cannot harm them. I hope the parents of this little girl sat and explained some of what she was about to say to her. I plan on doing so as my son gets older.
The fact is that a good amount of people (not only parents) like to make their kids dumb, because they are easier to handle. We don't sugar coat things for our children, we do our best to help them understand the reality of them instead. I don't keep them away from the knowledge of death and life. I'm not going to keep them away from anything that I know will not harm them.
The little girl in question is able to understand what she was talking about.
I’m sure I would have to explain to my kids why this little girl seems to be so disrespectful of adults, her parents included, and uses foul language, comments also made by other kids that did watch the video. I would have to explain these because, as you point out, the rest is “over their heads”. I teach my kids that “kind words and good manners never go out of style”. Rude and obnoxious kids and adults are a dime a dozen. Command of language also does not require obscenities, but it does require thoughtful effort. Call me lazy or whatever, but I simply don’t want to spend time with my kids explaining this video.
Just to clarify, I’m not opposed to the essence of the message at all, that is, a rant against Bill O’Riley. I am, however, opposed to the manner in which it was delivered via a young child. Why didn’t her parents have the guts to make this video themsleves? Further, I did not state that I thought my kids, or kids in general, would be permanently harmed by viewing this video. What I am saying is that, given a choice and control over the situation, I would not allow my kids to see the video simply because I see no point in it – no benefit as a teaching, nurturing or bonding experience. If you do, then so be it. Perhaps you feel it is a “broadening experience” for your child, but, no matter, I respect your decision. BTW, Tigg13 had some good points too.
I also understand your frustration with the school system and have had a run in with my schools in a similar fashion. I would like to share it, if you don’t mind.
As a family, we love nature, the outdoors and the rivers and bay waters of the Chesapeake. At a young age (< 6 years) all of my kids have asked me about those crabs, stingrays and (love)bugs stuck together. So I told them, that these animals were mating (having sex) which involved a boy and a girl animal and that this was nature’s way of producing more animals of this kind. I also explained that this was true of “people animals” too, otherwise there would be no more cute little kids like them and eventually all the people in the world would grow old and die and humans would become extinct, just like the dinosaurs.
I told them that the boy part of sex was called sperm and the girl part was called an egg and when the two came together, that a new baby or babies began to grow. So mating, or sex, between Mom and I was how they became kids – first growing in their Mom’s tummy and then living and growing up with us after they were born. They all seemed excited about this knowledge and enjoyed listening to their siblings and cousins in the mother’s and aunt’s bellies. Some were even in the delivery room at birth.
Well, one day, my middle daughter, Carrie, was at kindergarten recess, where two dogs, were attempting to mate. However, they also were being chased by the animal control folks. Carrie was incensed that these people would not just leave the dogs alone, after all, who doesn’t like puppies? Carrie also protested that the dogs were being chased into the road where they might be killed or injured.
As her class began to go in the school building, Carrie began explaining what was happening to those who had questions. I had to meet with three parents to apologize for Carrie’s violation of their children’s innocence and their collective sense of decency. I felt like a pervert. Thankfully, I was able to insulate Carrie from most of this mess, but she did have to apologize to one boy, because she told him, “What? You think the stork brought you? You must have noodles for brains”! I had to laugh and so did Carrie’s teacher, but this did not go over well with the little boy’s Dad and Mom. Anyway, Carrie and I both survived but we still wanted to roll this kid’s house!
Enough said. It’s hard to be a Mom or parent sometimes, but it is worth it! I can tell that you are a fighter, so stick by your guns and don’t let the school system or an old guy like me get you down!
but anyone w/ a bit of film/tv background would know that these production values are way beyong a simple home video. It was very obviously scripted, a very talented child actress hired, practiced the lines and the acting, then shot on high quality video and professionally edited together. The cuts, the lighting, the camera angles, and the way the text is cut at the end suggests at least a small production company behind it.
the quality is good enough to be put on tv as a commercial. it's in HD aspect already lol
out of curiousity i went to look up the video on youtube itself and here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8x14cLGh5o
along w/ this statement:
OFFICIAL STATEMENT: THIS VIDEO FEATURES A TALENTED YOUNG ACTRESS PLAYING A FICTITIOUS CHARACTER. IT IS A COMMERCIAL FOR THE BAND 'THE BASTARD FAIRIES' AND DIRECTED BY AN AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKING TEAM
it's funny how everyone thinks everything on the internet is "home grown" or something these days.
they don't realize how much commercial and professional material is released on the web.
and it's obviously a video targeted at adults, not kids.
See here for an overview.
This video doesn't give any indication that the child actor has been abused. Bill O'Reilly just doesn't like that someone made fun of him. He's even been known to threaten visits from FOX security to those who have in the past. Even those who simply mention one of his competitors (see here). Of course, he may just be acting too.
Personally, I don't tend to get worked up over videos like this. If I was the target, it wouldn't be worth freaking out about. Someone knew that having their kid do something like this would be provocative. That kind of thing sells.
Abuse:
"3. improper or excessive use [syn: misuse]"
"12. abuse oneself, to masturbate."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abuse
There are a number of ways to define abuse using a dictionary. Abuse to me, is defined as those actions that negatively affects a persons well being.
The parents are using their children to make a statement, for their personal benefit. If that is not what children are supposed to be "used" for, then one could suggest the children were being abused (not used properly). I suppose it comes down to what a parent considers proper "use" of their child.
Keep in mind that O'Reily says he and his production crew KNEW who made the video, buy that he wasn't going to identify them.
The end of the video clearly promotes The Bastard Fairies, a band, and anyone who visited the site would immediately see that, and can download their entire album for free!
With just a tiny bit of investigation, this story would probably never happened. It certainly would never have been about child abuse. Having little actresses say provocative things is nothing new, and no respectable professional psychologist would risk her reputation by making an instant prognosis without any more information than a YouTube video.
At the very worst this video might be considered to have been done in bad taste. At the very best it's a brilliant attention grabber.
I personally thought this video was humorous -- it made me laugh. My entire family thought it was funny. And I thought it was especially hilarious that O'Reily either showed how shallow his team's investigative skills really are, or worse, that he's just a junk journalist creating hype when there really isn't any.
However, I'm sure this new band appreciates the national advertising.
Anyway, enjoy the music of The Bastard Fairies, because you are all going to hell.
No, say it's not so, well, okay, can I watch The Bastard Fairies if I go :-)
LOL! Thank you for that story, I needed that. : )
I realized after I wrote my little rant to you that it wasn't really to you at all. I had mixed up what others had said with what you had said and kinda just went off. Sorry.
Again, thank you.
Its obvious this little girl doesn't know any of the stuff she is saying. And it is also obvious that her parents or someone who can work a camera has had her make that tape and say those things. I mean how old is the girl, 6 or seven. What could she possibly know about the Nazis and KKK. Of course someone made her do that. I don't think it is that she's being abused, I think her parents are just too scared to say it themselves, so they manipulate a little girl who knows nothing else but to obey her dumb ass parents. This is a good example of horrible parenting and judgement on the parents part. And they had that girl on there cursing. If her parents had such strong views then they should have dressed up and made a video NOT that little girl.
So this only applies to non-religious kids right? If kid's perception of the world leads them to believe in a creator then they are brainwashed?
I am a Christian, a black woman and a feminist. Since I have many hats that make up my identity I have many beliefs and none of them make me a fan of Bill O'Reilly.
So, if you truely proclaim yourselves to be enlitened then it should be easy for you to realize and acknowledge their are extremists in every group. Let me remind you that white people have a long history of trying to convince people they are better than ANYONE different for any reason they can think of including but certainly not limited to religious beliefs or the lack thereof. So it's no suprise to me that non believers think they are better than believers either.
I'm sure most of what I'm saying will be disregarded simply because I am black and most importantly, because I am a Christian
As much as I might be tempted to disregard your post, I'll resist that temptation:
I could personally care less if you are purple with pink stripes on your ass. And I congratulate you! You've demonstrated in just one short post that a person need not be white to be a bigot. And, as a bonus, you've also shown that Christianity is no cure for racism.
Applause all around. My hat's off to you!
At the risk of being tar and feathered...I will make this comment, I have never agreed with Bill O'Reilly ..but today I agree that the youtube video borders on child abuse. Yes I am a christian...and is teaching this child to make atheistic comments is wrong. Is this different from christians teaching their children about GOD at an early age...YES! Because GOD IS REAL!
Hello?
Does anyone think that?
A few posts ago on another thread, there was a proposition. The statement was something like...
"I completely disagree. I've played most of the GTA series and it is fraught with references degrading minorities and referring to religions with animosity and sexual reference...I think that since this is a free country, we should be able to buy whatever we want, even if it is a make believe fantasy world where virtual Christians are the targets of your pretend character."
Thus, this comment is one to set up the "next level" of discussion. Which is, if "I can buy hate products, and it's legal, then I demand to have the freedom to do so". Thus, of course, if everyone agrees, then the next question from someone under a different name will ask "what is the difference between buying a hate product/software, and the bible?"
And, now... we are on this topic of child abuse using the same strategy. Set it up with;
"Can anyone tell me the actual DEFINITION of Child abuse??? Frankly, I'm confused about this."
The "Next Level", of course, for the follow on question; "If a child is considered brainwashed because they are taught religious rituals, then why are they not brainwashed when they are taught Atheistic beliefs."
Now, what makes religious ritualistic training different than other non-religious training?
It comes down to "abuse". A child that is set up or taught something that sets them up for events in their lives that negatively affect their "well being", are being abused. If someone needs the clinical verse for this, just ask, I have plenty to provide.
Now, parental training methods are similar, but not the information and behaviors that can have long term negative affects.
For instance, teaching a child there are no rituals required on Sunday, is not going to negatively affect the child immediately in their childhood. If the child grows up, and chooses to become religious, it's under their own volition, and they are likely aware of the consequences.
Now, let’s reverse that. Teaching a child to symbolically eat the body and drink of the blood of a man who died a few thousand years ago seems a little rude to say the least. Add, all of the other religious beliefs that are irrational and a child may likely grow up believing that living in an irrational world is "normal". This method of training is the same, but the information that is being fed to the child, will likely create conflict over time.
The child has no defense initially in life, and they may find it hard to discard the systematic programming they received as a child - in other words, the child is being subjected to training that will likely have negative consequences in relation to their ability to function in reality - that is abuse. Children aren't naturally born to function irrationally and to ignore reality - it takes a religious upbringing to condition a child to that degree.
Jumping over to child actresses, and such activities, well... it's programming, but... it's not systematic programming designed to remove a child's natural state of awareness, and ability to rationally make decisions. Sure, it's teaching a pattern of behavior, but a child that is allowed to think rationally and is given the opportunity to openly dissent from actions they feel make them uncomfortable, threatened, scared, etc., are likely going to be okay.
This is the escape hatch, that religious programming doesn't offer, it's hell or heaven, there is no in-between. It’s made with a no-win situation, live a life denying ones being, or jeopardize living an eternity in hell.
It's the making the decision that's in the best interest of the child, that seems to get blurred many times, when parents get involved. A child is far better prepared to tell an open parent, what they do enjoy or like, and what they don't, sometimes there is compromise, but that's life.
Rarely, is a dictatorial parent, a positive role model for a child - my personal experience. And, although prescribing an affect on a child years from now, is like looking into a crystal ball, especially without knowing the family dynamics behind the child... the fact remains, the child is living her life, and time will tell whether she feels that she was "used" in a positive manner, or "not-used" in a positive manner - abused.
It would seem prudent to have a child involved in those decisions in their life, where they will have long term consequences. This child will be known in their home town for many years down the road, either in a good way or a bad way, and whichever way, a consequential way.
Each parent has to deal with the art of raising their child; a parent of a child who is biologically unable to perceive reality in a relatively normal state, will need more direct parenting than children who are fast burners in their logic skills.
Hopefully, I haven't offended anyone. If I have, consider my apologies, and feel free to offer up an opposing view - that's what posts are for. If things get too heated, we can do what some others find helpful, and take on personas of international natives, or religious people who believe they can possess an Atheist's thoughts. In either case, we may learn something - take care all.
Sorry, for not being more direct in my earlier post to the questions posed.
My answer is; there is no abolute. Being a child actress in itself is not abuse, it's not a standard in some book that says, "child abuse" see (Child Actress). One would have to know the conditions and circumstances surrounding this child taking place in this video. And, if there were abuse, it would be familial, not absolutely due to the art of being a "child actress".
Drinking water can be abused if done incorrectly, it's called drowning - yet, after all the drownings in the world, no one runs around saying don't drink the water :-)
The reason I asked if being a child actress=abuse to anyone is because this girl is a hired child actress. The entire video is a publicity stunt to promote a band.
If you go to the website advertised at the end of the video, you can download their music for free.
My point in bringing this to light is that Bill O'Reily admitted to knowing who made the video and therefore he would have known its purpose. Based on presentation of the video and the so-called expert on child abuse, can it be doubted that Bill is quite disingenuous?
I believe Bill was very genuine in his attempt to get revenge for his ego, by using a child abuse cover.
Interesting, that Bill has likely brought more negativity towards this child's life at school and in her hometown, than the abuse he alleges to have uncovered.
There are media monsters with huge egos all over the spectrum, Bill just happens to be the far right rectum on the spectrum at the moment. I'm sure he'll continue, it keeps the ratings/rantings up.
As painful as it is, I watch as much media as I can from all sides... Not in a supportive role, but in a situational awareness role… I am reminded from time to time of the following proverb.
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Sun Tzu 400 BCE
I wonder if the parents will sue for defamation of character, for falsely accusing the parents of child abuse.
"One side"? Okay, we can overlook the appalling grammar, why?...well, because we come to expect it, but come on now, Anony.......you only learned to count as high as two, in school?
NEWS FLASH: There's thousands of "god-beliefs", and all stand no less of a chance of being "right", than your Jesus belief. THOUSANDS. So if you're going to sit there and believe in a deity "just in case", you should immediately trek down to your local library and research which religion has the worst "hell", "just in case" you worship the wrong deity at the present.
This little girl would be exposed to the same views whether or not she was on camera.
Yet, like you, she was born with zero belief in god(Atheist). Furthermore, she'd have no reason to labeled an "Atheist", if it weren't for people who insist that god(s) exist. Think about it---the word "Atheist" wouldn't even be necessary if it weren't for Theists.
And just out of curiosity, what's the appropriate age to "teach" a child that Jesus will send them to hell for not believing?..what age?..3?...7?...what?..10?
So anonymous, you're right about one thing---whatever barbaric non-sensical "belief" reason won't cure?....death surely will.
Christianity is abhorent. Have a nice day.
The subject at hand was was this video child abuse, and I say no it isn't. My opinion goes on the side of the atheists on this board. I don't think this is any more child abuse than a child doing an oreo commercial. I don't agree with what the girl said, but to accuse her parents of ABUSE is a mis justice that I want participate in. I still choose to believe, but I still can be fair. Can you?
Religion isn't on trial just because it encapsulates natural problems commonly generated by both non-believers and believers in society.
The problem dear anonymous, isn't in the "problems", it's in the answers to the problems. Religion, creates irrational answers to problems and proposes them as absolute truths. Problems exist no doubt, but lying to a child that granny is now sitting in some throne in a heaven or frying in some hell - is not a productive or honest answer to the problem of death.
A child is surely born without information as you suggest, Tabula Rasa (without a religious belief/god), and children are surely taught culture, behavior, and consequences even if through life experience.
However, a child can be taught those things that make sense and align with reality, or they can be taught irrational things that do "not" align with reality.
Those that are taught the irrational solutions to rational problems can accept a religious title easily, yet their ability to reach conflict resolution for rational problems in life, relies on their ability to repress parts of reality that conflict with their irrational views. The answer to a problem for the religious is to repress reality and reinforce belief.
It's deceptive for a parent to lie to a child, and delusional for a parent to believe a child will not eventually grow up and see the conflict between what they were taught and reality.
The teaching of a child to repress their mental faculty goes against their natural state. The mind is therefore, being misused when it's not allowed and nurtured to function naturally, therefore, that's mental abuse. And, just because a victim isn't able to suggest they were mentally abused doesn't remove the abuse, some may even suggest that their abuse is the best thing that has ever happened to them. Albeit, those words come forth from one whom lives by creating irrational thought.
Along these same lines, a child who is allowed to bond to a companion in life is natural. If the child ends up being gay, the religious irrational thought is to condemn the child, and repress the behavior and thought. If the child can do this, then they are part of the in-crowd.
If you aren't getting the pattern, a child is born natural, either without a belief in god, or open to bond to another companion freely without prejudice.
Yes, there are tough questions that parents have to face; as well there are consequences they have to teach their children - death, being one of a multitude. For someone to suggest that teaching a child repression and irrational thought in life, is the same as teaching the child the natural truth of reality - is the product of someone using irrational thought.
I'll wait for the remainder of your irrational thought to be challenged, i.e., Albert being a true believer, the forefathers of the U.S. being believers, etc. As a matter of fact, I could only pick out a few things in your post that I could really agree with, one being that there are problems in society, it just becomes irrational from that point on.
That's nice.
Do you think, therefore, that you could figure out how to click the "other" button and post under a pseudonym rather than just using the default "anonymous." I know that clicking the "other" button and typing under a pseudonym might take an extra second or two out of your exhaustive schedule, but doing so would facilitate online conversation.
Oh, and using paragraphs can be quite helpful as well. Trying to read large blocks of rambling, uninterrupted and sloppily written text is annoying. Poor writing skills can also lower the the effectiveness of whatever point a writer is attempting to make.
My guess is that you believe your message is of great import, and that it is of foundational value to everyone because it concerns the eventual future home and eternal damnation of numberless multitudes of your fellow human beings. Surely a fractional investment in time on your part to ensure that your message comes across as cogent and well reasoned is not over asking, is it?
Now, on to the only point in your missive I'd like to comment on:
Einstein was not a believer. He was not Christian. He was not Jew. He did not believe in a personal god. Your information on this topic is woefully inaccurate. Hopefully you take more care when doing research within your chosen field. Please see the quotes below:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.
For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. — "The World As I See It"
by Albert Einstein
Okay, fair enough, I'll then assume, and hope, that you put a little more thought and time into designing bridges.
I am well aware that there are many different beliefs out there. My statement was merely meant to convey the opposing belief vs. non belief theories.
Understood, and my counter-point was that your original point "assumes" a false premise....that is, if ALL non-believers are "wrong", then ALL "believers" are "right". My argument still stands, BTW. Listening.
As fas as being born atheist. I choose to disagree. No child is born with a particular mindset. A child is molded and learns from their environment, parents and culture.
You are perfectly free to disagree all you please, notwithstanding, you missed the point---that being, that human beings come into this world with a "clean slate"..i.e..a neutral "mindset". Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). What I'm saying, is that it would be totally unnecessary to tell a child there "is no god", if it were not for people telling other children that there IS a god. 'Get it now?
What is the appropriate age to tell a child they will go to hell if they don't believe?
Yes? yes?....that was my original question. Is that your answer?...repeating my question? Don't ask me, I would never tell a child such a barbaric scary thing.... I'm asking YOU, a "believer"---what is the appropriate age to teach a child that Jesus will incinerate them if they lack belief in Jesus? Waiting.
What is the right age to tell a child they will be incarcerated if they break the law?
Children learn that there are consequences for defying authority at young age, depending on the parent(s). However, there is a great difference between a temporal "punishment", or "reprimand", and an atemporal or infinite "punishment", as in the latter case, there's no room for remediation. So really, such "punishment" becomes plain ol' torture. Nice.
What is the right age to tell a child that people die?
Whaaa?...people don't die, they go to heaven and live forever. Right? Oops!... well, only if they believe.
Lets be real religion is not the cause of this world's problems, people are.
No, not "people".....what people believe... much of which, comes from the parent(s), and the religion of said parent(s).
You can sit here and point a finger if you want, me I'm going to believe because that is my choice. Just as it is your choice not to. I can tell you about God, and if you choose not to accept what I have to say that's fine. But don't sit here and assume a condesending tone like you are superior in intelligence to us that(who) believe.
You're not a "that", Anon.... you're a "who". Give yourself some credit.
Anyway, yes, here in America, we have the freedom of religion/non-religion. Believe what you wish.... yet, if you expect other's to consider and/or conform to your set of beliefs, you'll need what's known as objective evidence. And yes, I'm sure that you can "tell us about God"...just like John Travolta can "tell us about" Scientology; just like a Bigfoot tracker can "tell us about" community gorillas.
BTW, if you don't like my "tone", you can always provide evidence for your rantings, and I'll reconvert to Christianity even if I HATE "God's plan".
Peace and mirth, and best wishes for the holiday.
Very arrogant for someone to say that they can tell someone about a god when said god has never been seen ever, by that reasoning then this means you can tell us about other galaxies and other unknowns in exact detail, and then it will be up to us as to whether to accept what you have told us.
I think you're full of shit!
I'd like to add to my statement... I stated that there was a common point where the non-religious and religious came together to confront the same problems in life, i.e., death, etc., and that the religious proposed irrational solutions while non-religious attempt to provide rational solutions.
However, the religious create "additional" problems that they present as beyond "normal" and "rational", where the non-religious don’t.
For instance, "original sin", is not problem baggage that non-religious people run around seeking answers to. The problem itself is created on an irrational platform of unfounded "words" and belief. Then, they attempt to create a "rational" solution to the "irrational" problem. However, the attempt at rational solution falls apart once the irrational problem is exposed.
It's why, many religious that come on this site, focus on presenting a "rational" statement for their solution... while the non-religious focus on the "irrational" problem. If there is no problem, there is no need for a solution, whether rational/irrational.
The rational solution presented becomes irrational in light of the irrational question/problem. When someone says "god is the answer", then I typically respond, "what was the question, who's asking, and why?"
The WM made an excellent response on Albert Einstein; he was in no manner a religionist, which requires doctrine/dogma and a religious hierarchy. All of that is a human affair.
BoomSLANG, do you have the number to a Bigfoot tracker, I need to know what the community of gorillas eat on a daily basis, so I can rationally figure out where big foot lives, based on diet and geography... Hehehehehehehe :-)
Post a Comment