In this crowd

That they didn’t create a new young atheist that day

It's the ongoing application of carrot and stick coupled with the bombardment of doctrine. Remember all the "atheist reeducation" camps Gil constantly reminds us about? That's exactly what they are doing and for a significant number of adults it's highly effective. With children it's far more effective. Predictably Gil has a problem with it when atheists do it, but completely dismisses the exact same behavior when far more theists do it to those who are even more vulnerable. Remember the "spare the rod" verse in the bible? It's about beating god into your kids and it happens every day all over the world to great effect.

It will prepare him for the workforce.

Church? Nope.

School? Well, maybe recess.

Otherwise there's a lot of kids who'd say, "I'm tired of this school."

Teachers are wise enough not to ask students questions we don't want answers to. Most of the time.

A child will lead them

I hated being dragged to church every Sunday

They punished him. In the future, if he doesn't behave exactly as they want him to behave in church, he'll be punished again, you can be sure of it.

when you were young, try synagogue. Boring n a language you don't understand...and long, so long, especially on holidays.

The belief that going through certain motions, rituals, just touching sacred objects, even without understanding them, can save you.

you know the all wise being, could only understand our prayers in Hebrew.

Catholic Mass was said entirely in Latin, and the priest said it with his back mostly to the congregation.

Talk about boring!

and type of mass - mostly 1/2 an hour.

went on for hours. Loner on holidays.

Only had one Jewish friend when I was a teen and by the time I knew him he had quit going to synagogue. Never asked him what his service was like.

boring

A seminal volume on prejudice against children for parents, teachers, psychologists, social workers, policy-makers—anyone concerned with the crucial subject of child welfare.

In this groundbreaking volume on the human rights of children, acclaimed analyst, political theorist, and biographer Elisabeth Young-Bruehl argues that prejudice exists against children as a group and that it is comparable to racism, sexism, and homophobia. This prejudice—“childism”—legitimates and rationalizes a broad continuum of acts that are not “in the best interests of children,” including the often violent extreme of child abuse and neglect. According to Young-Bruehl, reform is possible only if we acknowledge this prejudice in its basic forms and address the motives and cultural forces that drive it, rather than dwell on the various categories of abuse and punishment.

“There will always be individuals and societies that turn on their children," writes Young-Bruehl, “breaking the natural order Aristotle described two and a half millennia ago in his Nichomachean Ethics." In Childism, Young-Bruehl focuses especially on the ways in which Americans have departed from the child-supportive trends of the Great Society and of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Many years in the making, Childism draws upon a wide range of sources, from the literary and philosophical to the legal and psychoanalytic. Woven into this extraordinary volume are case studies that illuminate the profound importance of listening to the victims who have so much to tell us about the visible and invisible ways in which childism is expressed.

Elisabeth Young-Bruehl (1946-2011) was a psychoanalyst and the award-winning author of Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World, Anna Freud: A Biography, and Why Arendt Matters.

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300192407/childism





That church just taught a child how to hate and hurt others in the most expeditious way possible. Sickening.

Try being a better person.

Even prior to my posting here.

Perhaps I was secretly directing others?

Be the change you want to see, gil.

Or was "eye for an eye" the take-home message you got from Jesus' teachings? Hmm?

Again, your history is quite clear.

Understood.

You awesome Christian, you. A perfect example of your faith.

and justify it by invoking their gods.

If one says "Some religionists are willing.....etc.", the statement may have validity.

Overstatements defeat the purpose intended.

is a weak argument. If I meant all I would have stated all. What i wrote was correct based on the evidence cited in the op.

Those who think that they are the exception are incorrect. Every society indoctrinates its members. But we call it socialization to avoid the word indoctrination.

Just sayin'

But we both know that not all socialization is a good thing.

What the Chinese Government is doing to the Uighurs is no netter or worse than what many theocracies have done to "others" in their own societies.

I'm asking why you call it "indoctrination" when atheists do it to adults, but you take offense to using the same term when theists do it to those who are even more vulnerable. Some might call that intolerance.

But the term indoctrination is often intended as a pejorative. We can call it socialization to group norms, or we can call it indoctrination.

But you insist on a kindler-gentler term when it comes to beating god into children.

Makes perfect sense now.

Well done.

Who outside of primary school could have ever seen that one coming?

Pro-tip: Unless banality is your objective, it helps to come up with your own material. Otherwise...

And noticing that these gifs are your contribution to the dialogue.

What do you want it to prove? What did you think about it? What do you think it was intended to prove?

If you have no opinion about it, why post at all in reply? Please think before posting.

Almost a pattern at this point.

which went unanswered- a pattern of yours. If I ever actually insult you, you'll recognize that right away, I assure you.

The insult was yours, to the person to whom you replied.

It's good advice, too, and often given. Sadly, it's seldom taken. It's always wise to think before speaking of writing. Don't you agree?

And there are no implications.

Of course.

Because you just proved how utterly ridiculous your latest false accusation was.

But it is quite harmonious.

You know, kinda like your dehumanizing half-fast allegations of a "harmony" of people victimizing you.

Please try and keep up.

Not hard to see why. Never wants to discus anything in good faith, makes ridiculous false accusations, makes silly replies that you haven't seen since grammar school, and when you call him on his bullshit he plays the victim.

But I can understand the motivation to opt out. At some point the entertainment value reaches diminishing returns.

What would you do if your child publicly announced in church his dislike of being there?

And ask him why.

I'd have gotten slapped across the face.

Which to his credit goes against a longstanding Catholic tradition.

Kinda makes one go hmmmm.

I bet he'll never forget it

Secondly, beating your kid for speaking his mind, especially when it didn't have the intention for harm (not that there's ever an excuse for it) is a horrible life lesson. Chances are, this kid might grow up thinking that violence and causing pain is a proper alternative to dialog.
It's sad how some are so easily willing to harm their own family in the name of religion and public image.

know what church is about: punishment.

Absolutely disgusting!

A six year old boy speaks his mind when forced to take the microphone, and then is given corporal punishment for doing so.

That doesn't seem to me to be the best way to indoctrinate children into your cult, but, then, that is one cult I would never permit to indoctrinate children in the first place.

My mother-in-law, a kindly soul despite being a practicing Catholic, once took our two daughters (then aged 4 and 6) with her to mass without my knowledge. I was rather upset, and my wife, who had been dragged there as a child, wondered why? I said that 4 and 6 year old children are not old enough to discern for themselves whether or not to believe that some guy was killed, put in a cave sealed with a ten ton boulder, became alive again, tossed aside the boulder, told his dad "beam me up Scotty," and then rose into the sky when his invisible dad accommodated his wish. My wife said, well, sure, when you put it in those terms, it does sound ridiculous. I said, that was my point exactly. Mom-in-law can drag the girls to church when they are old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to go, and whether or not what they hear sounds plausible. I don't blame a 91 year old woman for her beliefs. I blame her long-gone parents for forcing theirs onto her. Our girls are now, at 34 and 36, way past old enough to decide for themselves what they want to believe. So far, their choice is "none of the above," which they arrived at of their own free will. I suspect this six year old boy will arrive at the same conclusion--either that, or he will be beaten into submission, and pass the behavior on, which would one perverse outcome (but, I suspect, a common one).

and folks wonder why I'm an atheist. Even at the age of eight I realized that something was seriously amiss in a place that discouraged questions and demanded blind faith. Nope, not for me.

I do believe we are looking at a future atheist, if he's not one already.