That may be the best video of all time.  I think the Pentecostals have got it straight, actually.  They already engage in baby talk, so they might as put an infant up there.  I wish you'd posted this where more theists might see it, however.  I'll definitely be putting it on my facebook page.

Jeez...I couldn't even watch the whole thing.  Disgusting...

For the record... i was thinking about commiting ALOT of child abuse while watching that video

They differ from adult preachers in that they cannot use the men's restrooms unescorted.

After looking into Marjoe Gortner's life and the effects from his upbringing I would call it abuse without any hesitation.  I don't think you could get any kid to go this far without extreme manipulation of one kind or another.  Of course, I could certainly be wrong.  Do you know of any cases where there's enough information to definitively say there isn't any abuse going on?

Wow.

I get berated for anecdotal evidence in the other thread and in this one everyone seems to be shouting a witness to you.

???

Marjoe Gortner grew up. You've seen the movie right?

Isn't it the question whether or not religious indoctrination fucks them up for life?

No.

The question is whether religious indoctrination is more likely than not to cause serious problems, at least well into adulthood.   Maybe we should have spelled that out.  The exception (someone who grows up to be normal despite abuse) doesn't mean it isn't abuse.

Josh, if you want to get into a meta-debate about normal, we can do that, but I've noticed that you still haven't defined abuse for me.  Is it your intention to render the term "abuse" meaningless and thereby grind this whole conversation to a halt?

Instead of poo-pooing everything that's being said, why don't you offer a coherent definition of abuse, and your reasons for liking that definition.  You and I both know that both of us are capable of twisting any psychological discussion in knots and rendering it useless philosophically.  I'm more concerned with the practical reality that religious indoctrination causes real (if difficult to define) harm.

Abuse in this instance is ridiculously difficult to pin down to one definition. Abuse in and of itself isn't.

In my opinion, there must be clear intent to harm the child. A case for 'abuse by ignorance' could be made using negligence by prohibition of information from the child, but simply telling kids to read the bible and believe it isn't. It seems apparent that the child must be given the opportunity to ask 'Why?' on their own even in the face of indoctrination.

Simply programming kids to be atheists would be just as ethically unsound as programming children to be theists.

Marjoe is actually one of my favorite anecdotes of all time. We have at least ten years for the jesus camp kids to grow up. Remember, I was a jesus camp kid. I am not unique.

People, parents in particular, are seemingly determined to fail at least a few times during the upbringing of their children.

Some have been parenting based upon their own adverse experiences in their rearing.

I call it 'Knowing what NOT to do as a parent'. All of the pent-up hostility that others share while on the shrink's couch is fodder for thinking parents. "Daddy didn't go to my dance recital, but I'll never miss one of my child's!" kind of thing.

Some are parenting based exactly upon the way they were raised and having to adjust with every changing societal moral construct as it happens.

An example of this is cellphones. I didn't have one as a 12 yr old. Should I give my daughter one if she continues to be on the honor rolls? Will it fuck up the homework time and cause her grades to suffer? Will she be an outcast in her class because she does not have one?

I have no data upon which to create a testable hypothesis to deal with this problem except for WHILE IT IS HAPPENING.

In the case of religious indoctrination, the parents are using one or both of the aforementioned methods of parenting. Either they were church-going and it did them a service of some sort OR they didn't go to church and think that they were missing out on something that they want their children to experience.

Which is right/correct?

Now, it falls to morality (which is my least favorite thing in the world). Ethics has no place here, in my opinion because as soon as we observe something and react we are doing so in a deterministic reference.

For instance, you see someone spanking their child in public. What do YOU do? I gauge the severity of the punishment and either walk away or say something like "Hey, take it easy." Other people call the police and demand the parent be lynched.

Where is the normal reaction? Momentum and force of the hand? Relative durometer reading of the child's ass?

How much bible thumping is 'abuse'? How much does it take to warrant my involvement?

What is my counter-argument if I am accused of abuse for giving my son 'god is not great: How religion poisons everything' to read?

We haven't even analyzed the amount of 'attention' that a child craves.

They have seen their parents or grandparents listen to ministers intently and never interrupt them. They see their elders speak with voices of adulation for the clergy.

A child craving attention would exploit the opportunities that preaching gives to get the attention of guardians.

N'est ce pas?

This is not child abuse.  It is disagreeable to us because we disagree with the message.  What I see is very common behaviour in apes.  The young copy the actions of their elders.

Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis

Kevin, use a dictionary when you get your allowance.

Love ya.

If I had raised you...

lol