Well said Outroar.
Some studies in correlation are needed.
Also it does interest me that some people on here, and elsewhere, are so quick to link Christianity with child abuse but shy away from condemning other religions. I wonder why that is?

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Because you're talking bollocks? All religions are abusive shit.

i'm really not sure that's what oboogie meant by "studies in correlation".

_________________
i have an art blog: http://procrastinationathon.blogspot.com/
and a review blog: http://blindwithwoodenhands.blogspot.com/
double blog! what does it mean?

Gosh how clever and considered of you.
Would you care to expand on that Lord Kobel?
Or is reasoned argument expecting too much?
Give it a go, what exactly is it that I have said which is bollocks?

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

That atheists shy away from attacking non-christian religions. I admit that we do tend to get wrapped up in christianity because it's the one that we (and our favourite atheist bloggers, such as PZ Myers) have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. Most of the major atheist websites are American so of course they would have a lot more exposure to christianity than any other religion, and most of their articles are about what fundie christians are trying to do this week. But there are plenty of articles attacking Islam and Judaism. It's only the non-abrahamic religions that tend to get ignored because they simply don't show up in our radar so often.

_________________
"Educate a boy and you educate only that boy, educate a girl and you educate her entire family." - Seen outside a school for girls in Afghanistan.

Ok thank you for an adult reply Cereal Dave.
I admit that I was thinking more about the UK and I've not see the US atheist websites to which you refer. It seems to me that in the UK the only people accusing non-Christian religions of child abuse are the far-right.
I was wondering why that is, is there really any evidence that Christians are more likely to abuse children than other religions?

What I meant by "studies in correlation" was that there are of sweeping generalisations being tossed around here in a style which we rightly pull the Mail apart for.

Whereas in fact:
Not all Christians are child abusers.
Not all child abusers are Christians.
Some Christians are child abusers.
Some atheists are child abusers.

NB I have used the word Christian because that is the focus on here - maybe for the reasons that CD gives? - I could just as easily have said Muslim, Jewish etc

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Think you're barking up the wrong tree slightly. Dawkins, for instance, has never excluded other religions from the disdain in which he holds the one with which he is culturally most familiar. Ditto Harris, Dennett, and most emphatically the late great Hitchens.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

Rather than go into depth in what Outroar said, I will consider it in depth later when I have more time, I would like to add that, rather than 'singling out' christians, there is far too much abusive and/or bad parenting in society nowadays. Whether that abuse falls at the lower end of the spectrum, parenting behaviors that should be minimized, or at the higher end of the spectrum with parenting behaviors that should not occur even once.

The effects of this bad parenting can potentially have one of two effects. In the first it produces adults who are too fearful and/or self loathing to navigate there adult life in a healthy manner. In the second it produces adults with a sense of entitlement who violate the rights of others. In all cases the children are not grounded in reality and there lies the root of the problem.

The effects of bad parenting can be clearly seen in the comments section of the mail website.

The purpose of parenting is to produce confident children who can effectively navigate the maze of the adult world.

So while some theists, who teach a literal hell to children, are flat out abusers at the other end of the spectrum anyone who teaches the supernatural as fact only have themselves to blame when their child has difficultly coping with the dark at night or, more simply put, separating fairy tale from fact. The parents are not the only people the child has to deal with and there lies the rub.

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Any form of indoctrination is abuse, by definition. Indoctrination of the young, before they have established critical thought patterns and the ability to be sceptical is abuse of children.
Abuse is a spectrum. There is slight abuse and serious abuse.
Anecdotes do not trump principles.

The only time I remember my dad really getting angry with me when I was small was the occasion I punched my sister. She was 16, I was 7. She was bullying me and I'd had enough of it and gave her an uppercut. I thought I'd done the right thing by standing up to a bully. But my dad delivered his iron rule that "boys don't hit girls - ever". No mitigation, no ifs or buts. That's certainly indoctrination - but is it really abuse?

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

I remember coming back from play-school and a repeating a racist joke that I'd been told to my mum and telling her that the only black child there had been referred to as 'chocolate'. I thought it was funny. She didn't bollock me but she did explain to me why it was wrong and why I should have empathy with other children (not in those words, but you know what I mean). I'm 38 now and I still remember it and will try and explain it to my son when he's old enough. Was this indoctrination? Mailites would say so but I doubt anyone here would think my mum was wrong - because it's indocrination we agree with?

_________________
MY COMMENTS ARE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH AND ARE ALL FACTS

Like I said, it's a spectrum.

If we're going to consider this child abuse, then a large fraction, possibly a majority of very good parents are abusing their children in some way or another.

Let's say I accept your premise that, however good my own parents were, they were child abusers by definition (I absolutely don't, but that argument's a dead end so let's skip it and say you won). Here's my observation - "child abuse" has the most horrific connotations of sexual assault, violence and neglect. Most people would think of child abusers as the most depraved and sick criminals. It's no coincidence that in the same breath as talking about religious parents, Rob mentioned someone who was "fiddled" as a kid. That's what "child abuse" brings to mind, amongst other terrible things.

Let's not pretend we're not aware of this, and it doesn't suit a particular agenda. The word "hate" is thrown around for exactly the same reason - it's the strongest and most negative word to choose. Elsewhere, Malcolm, you took the time to explain that while members of your profession take the position of condemning certain actions, they do not foster hatred for their pupils. No such consideration is afforded Christians - they must all "hate", because that sounds worse and it suits us that way.

It's very well to explain that what you mean by "abuse" is a very general thing, there are degrees and even some good parents abuse their children a little bit. But let's not pretend we didn't just call a bunch of people we don't like "child abusers" and quite enjoy it.

What would you think if a Mailite announced "all Muslims are child abusers"? If they expanded in the way you have done, would you be convinced there was no attempt to smear a group by using the most outlandish, provocative language possible?

Did you not read what I had written, or did it go over your head?

That's almost as easy a conversation killer as just saying "sophistry". In any case there's no answer. Well done.