Is forcing religion on children a form of child abuse?

[Claudio63]

I’ve recently read The God Delusion by professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University. (If you can buy it a bookshop in Little Rock it must be available in most places!).

His clear view is that parents forcing their religious ideas onto their children is a form of Child abuse – similar to sexual abuse and violence – though often worse in that the effects can be more profound and long lasting.

I found I strongly agreed with his view that religion is a form of “culturally transmitted” mental illness – and with his quote from Robert Pirsig - “When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion”

Does any one else here agree with the view that in a civilized society - there should be some limits placed on the extent to which adults can indoctrinate children with their own beliefs?

Going to the extreme of saying religion is a form of insanity is downright stupid. I guess he's stretching the point to make it clear, but it's a rather silly notion.

Most scientific theories are based on unproved "truths" so I guess maybe those of us who believe in the big bang theory are also delusional.

Sounds like Dr.Dawkins might come from an extremely religious fanatic family that maybe even beat God into him. Things like that can happen and even if there's no violence there might be irrational fears being transmitted from one generation to another through religion. But it's not enough to generalize such cases to all religious upbringing.

 

[Kulindahr]

i know im coming late to this but i have to ask

are you saying that genesis is factual?

Within their ability to describe things, within their ability to measure or their desired degree of accuracy, and within the constraints of the types of literature -- yes.

 

[Kulindahr]

It would therefore appear that, throughout my life, I've clearly been reading the wrong Bible (multitple translations thereof; not being fluent in ancient Hebrew myself).

For the Genesis accounts, there aren't any good translations, really.
From the Deluge material, take just one word, usually translated "earth". From that translation, people assume that the globe is meant. But the Hebrew word doesn't say that -- it's the same word for "land", which can mean anything from "as far as the eye can see" to "the known world" to "the inhabited world". Just knowing that makes the Deluge into a totally different event, and brings it much closer to something scientifically reasonable.
Take "kinds" (of animals), "fountains of the deep", and a few other terms, and we're looking at an event a reasonable scientist would concede could have happened.

 

[Kulindahr]

Going to the extreme of saying religion is a form of insanity is downright stupid. I guess he's stretching the point to make it clear, but it's a rather silly notion.

Most scientific theories are based on unproved "truths" so I guess maybe those of us who believe in the big bang theory are also delusional.

Sounds like Dr.Dawkins might come from an extremely religious fanatic family that maybe even beat God into him. Things like that can happen and even if there's no violence there might be irrational fears being transmitted from one generation to another through religion. But it's not enough to generalize such cases to all religious upbringing.

I love the [STRIKE]Fantastic Fart[/STRIKE] Bing Bang Theory!
It fits with Genesis 1 very well, BTW.

 

[_AJ_]

For the Genesis accounts, there aren't any good translations, really.
From the Deluge material, take just one word, usually translated "earth". From that translation, people assume that the globe is meant. But the Hebrew word doesn't say that -- it's the same word for "land", which can mean anything from "as far as the eye can see" to "the known world" to "the inhabited world". Just knowing that makes the Deluge into a totally different event, and brings it much closer to something scientifically reasonable.
Take "kinds" (of animals), "fountains of the deep", and a few other terms, and we're looking at an event a reasonable scientist would concede could have happened.

while i dont think there was and ark or Noah an epic flood is possible not one which covered all of the earth but that in a region could seem to one of the most logical explanation i have seen (Please note i am going from memory since i cant find it on the net) was that many people were settled in a place which was well below sea level and next to the ocean with some land holding back the water since at the time the earth was coming out of an ice age the water levels rose to a point where the water began to pour into where these people lived eventually covering everywhere they lived this would have happened very quickly once it began and would be very devastating.

i cant remember exactly where it is supposed to have happened but one of the inland sea's i believe is what was said

 

[Kulindahr]

^ That sounds a bit like a paper I heard presented, which IIRC had to do with the Black Sea.

 

[_AJ_]

^ That sounds a bit like a paper I heard presented, which IIRC had to do with the Black Sea.

thats what i thought

 

[Spensed]

I'm not clear what the Noah story has to do with forcing religion on children.

Other than it makes no sense to insist upon the factual literalness of the Bible especially as it has a bunch of other stuff in it which is clearly limited in its time period and of no relevance today, e.g. that slavery is ok.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I removed an unnecessary post that was a forum of abuse of another member who's posted to this thread. I'll remind everyone that this is a No Flame Zone.

Noah, and the Biblical teaching of the flood is probably THE most told story to children. From the Chapter of Genesis on, it gives credence to "Creationism."

It ties in with the topic of "comparative studies" which was also brought up in this post.

If we're to keep strictly to the topic of the first post in this thread, then I suspect that it will die (along with the conversations that it's generated) a quick death.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

Does any one else here agree with the view that in a civilized society - there should be some limits placed on the extent to which adults can indoctrinate children with their own beliefs?

I would never force my beliefs on another............

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not clear what the Noah story has to do with forcing religion on children.

Other than it makes no sense to insist upon the factual literalness of the Bible especially as it has a bunch of other stuff in it which is clearly limited in its time period and of no relevance today, e.g. that slavery is ok.

That's like saying we should ignore Newton's laws of motion, etc., because he also said some things that aren't relevant today.

It's also irrational. Do we decide that the data in a report shouldn't be considered factual because the report quotes someone from an earlier time, a statement we now know is limited in scope?

I can't grasp this use of literalist-fundamentalist approach to the Bible, especially when it's used to say we shouldn't take things literally. The very question is whether or not it is factual, and factuality is akin to literalism.
But literalism taken to an extreme is a form of narrow- and small-mindedness, and that is what should not be forced on children! What they should be taught is to read the Bible for what it is, and to respect the types of literature found there -- many of which we today don't have anything like.
As an example of the benefit of reading according to type of literature, take the first two chapters of Genesis. Reading them through a fundamentalist mode, they are contradictory (not that the fundies see that). Reading them as the types of literature they are, it's plain that they aren't contradictory.

 

[Spensed]

^ That all well and good as far as it goes.

But, unfortunately, many folk, who believe in the Bible, don't see it as as a historical or literary buffet from which you can take what you like and disregard what you see as mistaken or superseded.

They expect folk to swallow everything in the Bible as God's truth and therein lies the problem.

 

[JackFTwist]

^ That all well and good as far as it goes.

But, unfortunately, many folk, who believe in the Bible, don't see it as as a historical or literary buffet from which you can take what you like and disregard what you see as mistaken or superseded.

They expect folk to swallow everything in the Bible as God's truth and therein lies the problem.

the variety of legitimate (and illegitimate) methods of Biblical interpretation far exceed your two options here -

this is not the time or place to get into that, but the choices are not "accept it all literally" or "pick and choose like a buffet."

The phrase "swallow everything" is perhaps a good procedure in sexual contact but it is quite pejorative in reference to Biblical interpretation, just as the term "buffet" is. Biblical interpretation is a very vast theological field, and arguably the oldest academic field in America (i.e. Harvard, Yale...) as well as in Europe.

I know you didn't mean it that way so I am not in any way saying other, but your comments really come across as quite uninformed and mean spirited. Again, I know you didn't mean it that way.

 

[Spensed]

the variety of legitimate (and illegitimate) methods of Biblical interpretation far exceed your two options here -

this is not the time or place to get into that, but the choices are not "accept it all literally" or "pick and choose like a buffet."

I never said those were the only choices. But many Christians do demand acceptance of the Bible in toto rather than, as they see it, selectively, no matter what interpretations result in the latter.

The phrase "swallow everything" is perhaps a good procedure in sexual contact but it is quite pejorative in reference to Biblical interpretation, just as the term "buffet" is. Biblical interpretation is a very vast theological field, and arguably the oldest academic field in America (i.e. Harvard, Yale...) as well as in Europe.."

"Swallow everything" and "buffet" are mildly pejorative metaphors for two interpretative approaches. I don't see what that has to do with the academics of Biblical studies, which, in any event, aren't some sacred cow that need shielding from harsh language.

I know you didn't mean it that way so I am not in any way saying other, but your comments really come across as quite uninformed and mean spirited. Again, I know you didn't mean it that way.

It's fair enough to comment that my choice of words was slanted and that there are more than two interpretative methods. But what's the point of your final paragrah? It adds nothing to your response other than a failure to see how much your own epithets apply to itself.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ That all well and good as far as it goes.

But, unfortunately, many folk, who believe in the Bible, don't see it as as a historical or literary buffet from which you can take what you like and disregard what you see as mistaken or superseded.

They expect folk to swallow everything in the Bible as God's truth and therein lies the problem.

In either position/approach -- assuming I'm grasping what you mean -- people are discarding context and thus not really listening/reading. Your second category, if I understand what you mean, is the worse; they fail to really read, and so put everything on a single level -- and in the end turn out to be doing what the first category are, namely picking and choosing.

 

[JackFTwist]

deleted what I had posted for my own reasons

 

[bulge]

It is the worst child abuse ever as the child's mind will be damaged for ever. Brainwashing and steeling the child's mind for ever. There is no crime as bad as this one.

 

[Spensed]

In either position/approach -- assuming I'm grasping what you mean -- people are discarding context and thus not really listening/reading. Your second category, if I understand what you mean, is the worse; they fail to really read, and so put everything on a single level -- and in the end turn out to be doing what the first category are, namely picking and choosing.

I hadn't seen it quite in that way before, but I completely agree with this comment.

 

[Spensed]

It is the worst child abuse ever as the child's mind will be damaged for ever. Brainwashing and steeling the child's mind for ever. There is no crime as bad as this one.

I think that's, shall we say, overstating the case a little. LOL.

 

[bulge]

I think that's, shall we say, overstating the case a little. LOL.

It is an UNDERstatement