Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Any form of indoctrination is abuse, by definition.
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?
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?