Predatory Christianity

[lawtonfogle]

Evolution is a scientific theory. Its research goes far beyond the study of pepper moths. It is based upon observable evidence. I would not consider educating to be likened to brain washing. Education encourages people to think critically and form their own opinions.

Even so, on a large extent at the high school level, it is taught with an element of brainwashing. There are a few different types of teachers of evolution:
Those who say it is false and attempts to show it so.
Those who say they don't want to discuss it, and that you just gotta answer the questions and pass the test.
Those who don't want anyone to question it and force you to accept it.
Those who teach it rigorously and answer any objections so long as they are not for the sole purpose of interrupting a class, but does not demand one to believe what they are teaching.

The 1/3 do something like brain washing against/for (respectively) evolution. The 2 does some small amount of brainwashing, but they have no intention of doing such. 4 does the least brainwashing, often trying to counter act any brainwashing naturally found in the system of 'do as I say if you want to pass' we call school.

 

[Yahya Snow]

wow.

But to be fair all Christians are not like that.

 

[ragarth]

wow.

But to be fair all Christians are not like that.

No they don't, and I never said they did. This is thread specifically about the predatory actions of some and the views of those groups accused of such behaviour.

 

[ragarth]

Even so, on a large extent at the high school level, it is taught with an element of brainwashing. There are a few different types of teachers of evolution:
Those who say it is false and attempts to show it so.
Those who say they don't want to discuss it, and that you just gotta answer the questions and pass the test.
Those who don't want anyone to question it and force you to accept it.
Those who teach it rigorously and answer any objections so long as they are not for the sole purpose of interrupting a class, but does not demand one to believe what they are teaching.

The 1/3 do something like brain washing against/for (respectively) evolution. The 2 does some small amount of brainwashing, but they have no intention of doing such. 4 does the least brainwashing, often trying to counter act any brainwashing naturally found in the system of 'do as I say if you want to pass' we call school.

Your definition is overly broad. All subjects can be framed like this. "There are a few ways to teach how to make a pancake. Those who say pancakes taste terrible and attempt to show so, those who say they don't like pancakes and you just have to know enough to pass the pancake final, those who will not accept any dissent on the wonders of the pancake and require you to love it, those who discuss the merits of pancakes and the different methods of making them so as to be all inclusive and allow you to make your own decision on pancakes."

When you redefine a pejorative word so broadly so as to include everything within a given class, you are making an emotional plea with a dishonest argument. This is both a Special Pleading and an Emotional Plea fallacy, not to mention muddying the debate.

In any case, I'm happy to argue this in another thread until I run out of time, point me to the appropriate thread to have this discussion and we can have it, otherwise I'll ignore future fallacious arguments on this topic in this thread.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

I recently read an article about a Christian family who took in a French exchange student. They prayed and prayed to make a decision, then talked to each other and decided to do it. They chose a girl named Marine, who was a 15 year old agnostic from rural Paris. To give an example of what they subjected this girl to, they pressured her into participating in their religion, using tears and ultimatums to their advantage.

Considering how vulnerable an exchange student can be, their isolation from friends, family, everything they know, their limited english vocabulary, and their dependence upon the surrogate family, it's no wonder that Marine was brain washed by these predators. In short, these Christians took advantage of a young and impressionable girl's vulnerability and situation to make her conform to their philosophical beliefs, and that is the crux of why I consider their act despiccable. Would the family have been okay if their child were turned Atheist by a family in Europe? I'm guessing the answer's would be no since the fact that they believe the creation museum is accurate points to their being fundamentalist.

Minds and Hearts Changed through Creation Ministry | Around the World with AiG’s Ken Ham

So I ask you, is it right for Christians to prey upon vulnerable children to spread their beliefs?
Is it right for anyone to prey on vulnerable children to spread their beliefs?
Do you think Atheists prey upon children?
Do you think Gays prey upon children?

Please explain your answers fully, and for extra credit explain how you feel I'm right or wrong in describing this example family as predators and despiccable.

One question. Did the girl have the ability to return home whenever she so chose? With that said any child living in my home will obey my rules, which would in this case include mandatory Church attendance, participation in Bible Study and Prayer.

 

[b&wpac4]

With that said any child living in my home will obey my rules, which would in this case include mandatory Church attendance, participation in Bible Study and Prayer.

If you were taking in an exchange student, I assume you would be up front about this before agreeing to take them in so that they could make the decision to stay with you or not, correct?

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

If you were taking in an exchange student, I assume you would be up front about this before agreeing to take them in so that they could make the decision to stay with you or not, correct?

Yes you are correct I would make that absolutely clear. Anything less would be unfair to the child.

 

[b&wpac4]

Yes you are correct I would make that absolutely clear. Anything less would be unfair to the child.

I agree completely.

 

[ragarth]

One question. Did the girl have the ability to return home whenever she so chose? With that said any child living in my home will obey my rules, which would in this case include mandatory Church attendance, participation in Bible Study and Prayer.

I'm not sure, though even if she had the chance to cancel the program, somebody would have to pay for the return plane ticket. If I were an exchange student the fact that either the agency or my parents would be unduly burdened by my weakness would most certainly make me unwilling to quit.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

I'm not sure, though even if she had the chance to cancel the program, somebody would have to pay for the return plane ticket. If I were an exchange student the fact that either the agency or my parents would be unduly burdened by my weakness would most certainly make me unwilling to quit.

Well I'm not necessarily sure that it would be considered a weakness. But as a parent my child wouldn't be there if I couldn't afford to bring them home. The only reason I asked is because the only experience I have is through a friend who sponsored an exchange student and one of the primary rules was that the Child was always to be in possession of their return ticket, passport and phone number of their consulate or embassy. I just didn't know if this was universal or unique to just that particular program.

 

[ragarth]

Well I'm not necessarily sure that it would be considered a weakness. But as a parent my child wouldn't be there if I couldn't afford to bring them home. The only reason I asked is because the only experience I have is through a friend who sponsored an exchange student and one of the primary rules was that the Child was always to be in possession of their return ticket, passport and phone number of their consulate or embassy. I just didn't know if this was universal or unique to just that particular program.

I'm not sure, however my experience has been that rescheduling a flight is very expensive and that is the expense I was referring to. As per my weakness comment, that's how I thought about such things when I was younger. I'd see not completing such a program as a weakness on my part, a failure. I would have felt I had let everyone else down. I was a bit dramatic as a child.

 

[lawtonfogle]

When you redefine a pejorative word so broadly so as to include everything within a given class, you are making an emotional plea with a dishonest argument. This is both a Special Pleading and an Emotional Plea fallacy, not to mention muddying the debate.

What have I changed the definition of to define everything in what class?

I am using the more common use of the term 'brainwashing', not the use which is reference to the literal technique, and even if you do disagree with the use of such a term, the disagreement in only semantics. Call it what you will, but some teachers, be they teaching evolution, Calculus, or any number of other subjects, demands you learn it and will often time not explain why the facts are as they are.

In any case, I'm happy to argue this in another thread until I run out of time, point me to the appropriate thread to have this discussion and we can have it, otherwise I'll ignore future fallacious arguments on this topic in this thread.

Exactly what are we arguing, the semantics of what I call it when some teachers just demand you to learn something, or that teachers like that actually exist?

Also, are you gonna be one of those who call any arguments which disagree with them fallacious or not? Are do you think I am some anti-evolutionist who thinks evolution is false and that the public school system is forcing it down the throats of every single person who goes to school? Because, if you do think that, then it may be key to point out that I accept evolution as scientific fact, but that for my first two years of high school biology, I was taught it in the same way I was taught creationism my first 15 years (the big book (be it the textbook or the Bible) says so). I am grateful that my third year of biology I had two excellent biology teachers (one a Ph.D. in macro, another in micro) who taught me evolution for what it really was, showed me the arguments for it, and let me make my own choice on the matter.

Also, just to point out, because this is about the biggest mistake I see 'rational thinkers' making, person evidence does constitute a 'there exist' proof as long as you believe the source is not lying. While it does not constitute proof of a 'for all', it does of a 'there exist'.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well I'm not necessarily sure that it would be considered a weakness. But as a parent my child wouldn't be there if I couldn't afford to bring them home. The only reason I asked is because the only experience I have is through a friend who sponsored an exchange student and one of the primary rules was that the Child was always to be in possession of their return ticket, passport and phone number of their consulate or embassy. I just didn't know if this was universal or unique to just that particular program.

As far as general rules go, that seems to be a good one.

 

[JustMeSee]

Even so, on a large extent at the high school level, it is taught with an element of brainwashing. There are a few different types of teachers of evolution:
Those who say it is false and attempts to show it so.
Those who say they don't want to discuss it, and that you just gotta answer the questions and pass the test.
Those who don't want anyone to question it and force you to accept it.
Those who teach it rigorously and answer any objections so long as they are not for the sole purpose of interrupting a class, but does not demand one to believe what they are teaching.

The 1/3 do something like brain washing against/for (respectively) evolution. The 2 does some small amount of brainwashing, but they have no intention of doing such. 4 does the least brainwashing, often trying to counter act any brainwashing naturally found in the system of 'do as I say if you want to pass' we call school.

Fair point. There may be a fair level of what could be called brain washing in schools. The 'believe as I say' mentality may exist in many entry level classes. This is a popular reason many parents have for homeschooling their children.

Of course, museums, movies, and television are also tools used to convince people to believe different things. I guess you consider this to be a low level of brainwashing.

----
Do you consider this to be brainwashing?
YouTube - Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )

 

[Verv]

The given story was an example situation, it's indicative of a larger issue- Many Christians seem to feel their beliefs are being attacked, that atheists/gays/others are attempting to steal their children when it is in actuality these very Christians who are using the tactics they rail against.

Further, I have no doubt that there are people on this board who believe that spreading Christianity by any means possible is appropriate or that atheists/gays are preying on their children, read enough posts in Ethics & Morality and you'll see them. The question is, are they willing to admit it to a direct question? If they are willing to do so, it will make interesting debate.

You are fully correct, however, that if an oppositional opinion does not develop on at least one of the questions I stated then this thread will have failed in its purpose and a core theme for the debate will not develop. This is a risk I take when I make these types of threads, but when they pan out the debate is usually very interesting.

Fair enough.

Christianity seeks to spread as a religion and as a values system because we believe it gives something good to people who practice it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Fair point. There may be a fair level of what could be called brain washing in schools. The 'believe as I say' mentality may exist in many entry level classes. This is a popular reason many parents have for homeschooling their children.

Of course, museums, movies, and television are also tools used to convince people to believe different things. I guess you consider this to be a low level of brainwashing.

Actually, yes, I do. Especially advertising. Some of it is much more sickening to me than others. I try to avoid TV as best I can. At least I am not forced to look at the adds online (most of the time...).

----
Do you consider this to be brainwashing?
YouTube - Brain Washing ( Jesus Camp ''Highlights'' )

Yes.

The scary part is that I lived that when I was younger. Not that camp per say, but any differences compared to the ones I did go to are minute. Of course, I any mature person, child or not, should be allowed to choose to go to such a place, but I highly doubt that even a majority of those people there would fall under what I call mature.

 

[ragarth]

What have I changed the definition of to define everything in what class?

I am using the more common use of the term 'brainwashing', not the use which is reference to the literal technique, and even if you do disagree with the use of such a term, the disagreement in only semantics. Call it what you will, but some teachers, be they teaching evolution, Calculus, or any number of other subjects, demands you learn it and will often time not explain why the facts are as they are.


Exactly what are we arguing, the semantics of what I call it when some teachers just demand you to learn something, or that teachers like that actually exist?

Also, are you gonna be one of those who call any arguments which disagree with them fallacious or not? Are do you think I am some anti-evolutionist who thinks evolution is false and that the public school system is forcing it down the throats of every single person who goes to school? Because, if you do think that, then it may be key to point out that I accept evolution as scientific fact, but that for my first two years of high school biology, I was taught it in the same way I was taught creationism my first 15 years (the big book (be it the textbook or the Bible) says so). I am grateful that my third year of biology I had two excellent biology teachers (one a Ph.D. in macro, another in micro) who taught me evolution for what it really was, showed me the arguments for it, and let me make my own choice on the matter.

Also, just to point out, because this is about the biggest mistake I see 'rational thinkers' making, person evidence does constitute a 'there exist' proof as long as you believe the source is not lying. While it does not constitute proof of a 'for all', it does of a 'there exist'.

What I was pointing out was that your argument against evolution is an argument against anything that is taught. The use of such an argument is dishonest, as I said, because it singles out a property of the teaching of evolution and denigrates evolution for it, when said property is possessed by the teaching of any subject, but other subjects are not denigrated for it. When a property is possessed by all members of a given class (be it collegiate subjects, fruits, or animals), you cannot single out a single individual within that class for denigration based upon that property, you must denigrate all the members of the given class that posses that property. This is what I perceived you as doing in your argument, if I am wrong, please point out where I misread your post.

And no, I don't label every post in opposition to my own as fallacious, only those that I perceive as containing fallacies. I also do not claim to not make fallacies of my own- I'm only human and I make mistakes. My objectives on this board are to test my beliefs and opinions (changing them where they're wrong) as well as to improve my capacity for recognizing and eliminating fallacies in my own arguments. To this end I treat people as I would like to be treated, I would be appreciative if others would show me the same courtesy I show and point out the failures in my logic.

I didn't understand your last paragraph, care to rephrase?

 

[lawtonfogle]

What I was pointing out was that your argument against evolution is an argument against anything that is taught.

I found your problem. I was never arguing against evolution, but the way it is sometimes taught. I just find that evolution the subject most affected by this (especially with how much creationist try to influence it) though I see it in other classes (my college's intro calculus classes suffer from this more times than not, leading many people to hate calculus, when a rigorous teaching would fully explain why things derive/integrate as they do).

I didn't understand your last paragraph, care to rephrase?

I put that there just in case you were planning on saying 'your own experience does not count'. I was just saying that my personal experience counts so far as showing that evolution being taught via a 'believe it because I said so' does happen sometimes, but that it does not prove it always happens.

 

[ragarth]

I found your problem. I was never arguing against evolution, but the way it is sometimes taught. I just find that evolution the subject most affected by this (especially with how much creationist try to influence it) though I see it in other classes (my college's intro calculus classes suffer from this more times than not, leading many people to hate calculus, when a rigorous teaching would fully explain why things derive/integrate as they do).

Woops, my bad, I apologize if I insulted you.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Woops, my bad, I apologize if I insulted you.

No worries. Miscommunications (or how ever you spell it) are only to be expected online as we lose well over half (some say upwards of 90%) of our ability to communication like we do in real life interactions.