The freedom of speech argument against the petition is a common one. I’d like to make two points on this.

Firstly, we should not consider it a freedom of speech issue if someone seriously psychologically tortures a child with the sole intent of manipulating them into a state of compliant terror. Children are protected from certificate 18 films, adult television programmes and other material because it is generally accepted that they are impressionable and more likely to be traumatised by exposure to these things. I fully believe that adults should have the right to read and watch what they want to; but I do not believe that we should extend that freedom to people wishing to expose children to this material. If you are a parent, consider someone showing your children hardcore bondage pornography. Is that a freedom-of-speech issue too? Or should we perhaps be considering the effect this would have on the mind of a child?

Secondly, I think that the distinction between physical and psychological bullying is not as clear as many people assume. If you bully someone or expose them to violent imagery, it has a physical effect on the brain which is reflected in behavioural and emotional changes. The effects of religious bullying are very real indeed for the victims.

There are two very helpful articles on Richard Dawkins’ website about this:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2176,A-Letter-From-Hell,RichardDawkinsnet

Also have a look on YouTube for ‘Hell House’. There is a tour there of a hell house with horrible, unrealistic, frightening imagery which is aimed specifically at children. Images like that (particularly the abortion scene) would not be allowed in a film aimed at children; so why should we allow the Government to treat religious groups any differently when it comes to what children are exposed to?

The problem here is just that: inequality of application of existing legislation; and contradictory legislation on religious freedoms and the rights of children to live free from bullying and trauma. This needs to be clarified; and the special treatment that religious groups enjoy when it comes to this sort of abuse needs to be dealt with.

If I threaten a child with torture the authorities would take action to stop it. If you’re in any doubt about the inequality here, phone the police and tell them that your child was threatened with damnation by a street preacher and see what they say.

Nicola Holt

Religious and racial harassment laws in England extend the laws of bullying and verbal assault and provide judges with the power to impose greater penalties for religiously motivated crimes. They don’t add any crimes to the statute books but highlight race and religion as being areas where harassment can be a more sensitive issue.

Signing this petition, as I have, doesn’t propose adding to the law or limiting a citizens’ right to free speech or to raise their children within a faith. It simply highlights the need to enforce existing laws when applied to the most extreme forms of religious abuse in the mental torture of children. It also proposes that a special case be made, as with religious and racial harassment, for harsher penalties where the religiously motivated bullying of children to indoctrinate them into a religion occurs.

There is almost no chance of this petition getting into law but there is a small chance that it will raise public awareness and maybe make parents think about how they go about sharing their religion with their children.

Mind you, the US is a far more violent place, and kids here can be subjected to real world violence and discrimination. Kids should be protected from that, but not from figments of somebody’s imagination. I advise kids in the UK who are threatened with the wrath of God to tell their wanabee tormentors about the wrath of Thor.

Besides, separation of church and state (at least in the states). Door swings both ways.

That’s a dangerous proposal. While I dislike religious indoctrination as much as the next guy, I’m loath to invite a government to decide what parents can teach their children. That’s likely to backfire on freethinking parents.

It’s better to use social change to affect what children are taught rather than the threat of governmental violence (i.e. we’ll throw you in prison if you teach your children your religion).

I agree. I can’t sign it for that very reason. I hate to say it, but it’s a slippery slope and it could open a can of worms we don’t want to open.