Is forcing religion on children a form of child abuse?

[3nipples]

It depends on what you mean by "forcing". In its extreme, forcing could be a form of child abuse.

To equate forcing with teaching, however, is going over the top.

I haven't read the book you're basing your thread on. Does the author think that teaching religion to children is child abuse?

 

[Treborf]

Even if all religions are delusions, it doesnt follow that its wrong to teach your children about them. Is telling your kids about Santa Clause child abuse?

But anyway, the whole argument is silly. One of the major aspects of being a parent is passing along their values to their. What makes religion from all the other values that parents enstill in their children? It seems like Dawkins is just calling it child abuse, because they are promoting a value he doesn't agree with. Using language such as this really trivializes the tragedy of real child abuse.

 

[Kurn]

Here is my Quick Reply:
If you act on the assumption that religious indoctrination is an abuse, you really must be certain that you are not inculcating a worse abuse in its place.
The Outsider should recognize that religious beliefs often serve an ecological function and that radical uprooting can have unintended negative consequences.

Anger almost never produces a better outcome than peaceful co-existence.

What might be better is figuring out an appropriate transition. After all, our "mainstream" religions developed in an age when you weren't sure the Huns weren't going to raid your village next year. Parts of present-day religions are good. Parts are out-dated.

 

[littlelarry]

To me... if you believe that God is real... then you are not doing damage to your child. You are teaching your child to believe what you believe. This is a normal transition between a father/mother and their child.

If you believe God is not real, then you are doing great damage to your child.

It seems that people want to say "child abuse" when you share a belief with your child, but to be quite honest, if you believe you should teach your child the same. There are all kinds of thoughts that people believe and push onto their children. That is normal. Just because it is a religious belief, we tend to get more on guard.

What I am saying is this... what you believe... teach your child. They will learn it and accept it. They will also think about it and agree or disagree later in life. How you raise them will determine how long they take to "figure things out". If you want them to follow you blindly, then don't give them any other option than to believe what yo believe.

HOWEVER... if you want them to have their head on their shoulders, then tell them that they need to make up their own minds first... then tell them what you believe.

I am a big fan of letting youth come up with their own thoughts.

 

[iah822003]

I think it's ok for adults to tell children that some people believe that there is a god because it's true, but I don't believe that children should be taught that there is a god. As to imply that there is a god as a fact is wrong, as we simply do not know that to be true. That would be misinformation and would warp the child's way of thinking.

 

[JackFTwist]

This is a most absurd thread.

It is impossible for parents not to impart beliefs and values to children - children are not raised in a skinner box, they are raised in life, and values and beliefs get transmitted.

It is only a conceit of some that God does not exist or that God is not reality. It is the conceit of others that God is reality. So some of you would limit what a parent can teach a child?

There are so many things that impart values that some of us find troubling. Perhaps patriotism, nationalism, should be be transmitted to children - who is to say that one country is better than another, and is not that the source of much wrong in the world> What about political and economic beliefs - is it a crime to raise a child with republican or capitalist beliefs? Is it wrong to raise a child as a cubs fan? (yes it is ... not only because it is the wrong team, but because that communicates an acceptance of organized sports and that is among other things an institutionalized form of violence...)

Is it abuse to raise a child with any gender identity? Is it abuse to allow a child to watch television? Is it abuse to take a child to a movie? Is it wrong to raise a child with an ethnic and/or racial identity? All of these things can be considered abusive by those who wish to find it so.

The underlying issue - other than the obvious hostility that some have to faith issues which is their problem, not a child-rearing calamity - is the transmittal of values that some find objectionable and abusive - and we may agree that violence and hate are bad values to transmit, and they can be transmitted apart from or as a part of religious, cultural, political, ethnic, racial, and nationalistic values, so this thread targeting religion is absurd.

But beyond that - who decides, who is the one who determines what abuse is when it comes to values?

That is a dangerous area and no one has that right and authority, and frankly after reading some of the comments that have been presented here, it can only be restated that freedom of conscious and not the imposition of others should determine what values and beliefs are transmitted by parents to children.

 

[Spensed]

^ What you're saying sound basically right to me. My guess is that the abuse notion is being fanned by Dawkins to sell his books.

Having said that, the thread isn't that absurd in the area of home schooling or religious schooling in belief systems that specificially exclude other belief systems and sometimes science. Some extremist Muslims, I believe, practice this and so do some extremist Christians.

I have no statistics, but you occasionally see some shocking nonsense appearing on the tv screen, where the children deride evolution and live almost a cult-like existences. That leads to creepy things like Purity Balls for fathers and daughters and James Dobson telling fathers to shower with their sons (so the sons can see their father's dick and avoid being gay). Dont ask.

That kind of extreme religious indoctrination is abusive and, unfortunately, it is become more prevalent or at least it features more in the media.

 

[Negasta]

This is a most absurd thread.

There are many beliefs included in religion that are good, such as be kind to your fellow man and love thy neighbour. These values, however can be taught without the invisible man in the sky attached to them. As Christopher Hitchens says: "Name me one good deed that has been done in the name of religion that cannot be done without it" (paraphrased).

Unfortunately, there are a lot of bad things religion teaches, such as hatred toward those that don't believe as you do and unquestioning belief in whatever holy text even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.

Prof. Dawkins' major objection to raising children religiously, is the teaching that blind faith is a good thing by so many religious parents to their children. Examples of this are where children are taught to believe the Genesis story over the mountain of scientific evidence for evolution and when they start asking questions, they are told "don't think so much, just have faith", or when they ask about the atrocities in the Bible done in God's command they are told "God must have had a reason". He also objects to the automatic labelling of children with the faith of the parents.

Then the retort always comes: "Stalin and Hitler were Atheists and look how many people they killed". Then I quote Hitchens once more: "Do you think any nation following the principals of Thomas Paine or Spinoza or Jefferson would have such atrocities happen", Stalin and Hitler did not kill because of their Atheism (Hitler wasn't an Atheist anyway), they killed because of their fundamentalist belief in Marxist-Leninism and National Socialism respectively.

Dawkins does not object to the teaching of religion per say, he objects to the teaching that unquestioning faith is a virtue and the labelling of small children with belief systems that thy are to young to understand or think through.

The people that have never actually read The God Delusion and then vomit bile all over it, should maybe go to the book store and read it before shooting their mouths off.

 

[JackFTwist]

The people that have never actually read The God Delusion and then vomit bile all over it, should maybe go to the book store and read it before shooting their mouths off.

What a great witness for what you believe.

You have no idea what I have read or haven't read, but I do recognize intolerance and bigotry when I see it.

And I see it.

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

I don't see how parents beliefs can be separated from their children. It seems that each generation learns from the previous generation, either from parents or the community. I was raised in the 50's and I was a teenager in the 60's. Spanking was considered "normal". Sex was never talked about. And I was taught the fear of Hell. But at some point, a person has to say, "Okay, what do I believe?", or what makes sense? I've kept some of my parents teachings, but I've added a lot of my own and I borrowed some from other people. Some of my parents teachings, I know were shit, and I try to forget or throw out those ideas. And I'm still learning.

What are we passing on to the next generation? I like to think it is tolerance and appreciation of different beliefs.

In other words, we are all passing on good and bad ideas to the next generation. It is up to that person to figure out "his" own ideas.

 

[AngelBoy]

What are we passing on to the next generation? I like to think it is tolerance and appreciation of different beliefs.

In other words, we are all passing on good and bad ideas to the next generation. It is up to that person to figure out "his" own ideas.

It sounds like your parents and teachers taught you the idea of thinking things out rationally for yourself. This does not mean they didn’t let you know what their ideas were.

Unfortunately many religions and ideologies are taught to children in a context of being absolutely true and beyond question.

Children are uniquely vulnerable – which is why they are usually protected from exposure to sex, violence and drugs etc as these influences can have bad effects which last all of their adult lives.

In the same way very few people exposed to intense indoctrination as a child do go on to question or abandon these beliefs later.

These ideas become part of their core identity and they generally remain committed to them for the rest of their lives. Of this type of teaching - religion seems to be the most powerful – though nationalism and political ideologies can be almost as strong.

The effectiveness of this indoctrination can be seen by the way these children as adults not only stick with a particular religion but also to the particular “Brand” they were taught. In fact many of the strongest disagreements (and violence) seem to between religious sub-sets that are almost totally indistinguishable to an outsider.

It is this (quite prevalent) form of doctrinaire teaching that Porf. Dawkins is against.

I think people should be able to hold any belief they want – provided this does not harm others. But harm includes using any form of coercion to force these ideas on others.

For those interested in Gay issues this religiously inspired harm ranges from relatively mild political lobbying to limit Gay civil rights all the way to several countries which still have the death penalty for homosexuality.

 

[JackFTwist]

1. Unfortunately many religions and ideologies are taught to children in a context of being absolutely true and beyond question.

2. The effectiveness of this indoctrination can be seen by the way these children as adults not only stick with a particular religion but also to the particular “Brand” they were taught. In fact many of the strongest disagreements (and violence) seem to between religious sub-sets that are almost totally indistinguishable to an outsider.

3. It is this (quite prevalent) form of doctrinaire teaching that Porf. Dawkins is against.

4. For those interested in Gay issues this religiously inspired harm ranges from relatively mild political lobbying to limit Gay civil rights all the way to several countries which still have the death penalty for homosexuality.

1. unlike the all-knowing beyond question absolutely true way you present your own particular beliefs?

2. such a fantasical dreamy view of reality

3. so he would limit the freedom of others because at this moment in his life he has decided this or that?

4. what you don't know about faith and gay issues could fill many volumes. does all that all-knowing self-righteousness hurt? what distinguishes you from a most fanatic zealot who insists that his views must be adopted by all society because all society is wrong because it lacks your insights?

 

[ok455]

I know a preacher on tv that tells people there kids need to be in a religion. Also this preacher is the biggest asshole ever he was talking about how being gay is worser then cancer.


I don't think kids should be forced to do anything it should be up to them. Religion imo can be used to teach people how to hate like homosexuality. And blame everything on the devil. If i have kids i wouldn't let them know about it

 

[AngelBoy]

1. unlike the all-knowing beyond question absolutely true way you present your own particular beliefs?

2. such a fantasical dreamy view of reality

3. so he would limit the freedom of others because at this moment in his life he has decided this or that?

4. what you don't know about faith and gay issues could fill many volumes. does all that all-knowing self-righteousness hurt? what distinguishes you from a most fanatic zealot who insists that his views must be adopted by all society because all society is wrong because it lacks your insights?

1. I might be wrong but I think to try and state every idea in neutral way could maybe according to some people take up a lot more space – on the other hand it may not take up too much space. It depends on your point of view – or possibly not

2. Such a well argued and articulate point is hard to answer.

3. The freedom for people to do whatever they want to children is already restricted – even where they “own” these children.

4. What any one individual does not know on almost any issue would fill volumes. Having an opinion despite not knowing every single detail is probably not going to cause pain.

 

[JackFTwist]

47 posts - all of them to express your hate. Wow.

Your style of misdirection and making up stuff to respond to is probably really cute and impressive with your usual crowd but, darling Angel, not so impressive here.

I wrote:

3. so he would limit the freedom of others because at this moment in his life he has decided this or that?

you replied:

3. The freedom for people to do whatever they want to children is already restricted – even where they “own” these children.

As long as you keep making up your own things to reply to, rather than to what was actually said, you will win lots of battles in your own mind. No one here has said that anyone can do anything that anyone wants to a child. We do resist the fascist designs of Dawkins on the freedom of people to have opinions separate from his, in that we have not appointed him the all-powerful one.

In fact his book is filled with hate and invective. Organized religion can point to the existence of a deity since organized religion has been blessed with such a hate filled and spite filled misanthrope as Dawkins as its opponent. And Dawkins without his sensationalist hate speech would not make so much money selling books. So he has his own reward for his hate: money.

Dawkins has done some good science but outside of his area of expertise, he is just another fanatical, and fascist bigot, even more so than James D. Watson, noted anti-semite.

I see in another thread your attack on someone regarding evolution. The limits of your knowledge just amaze. You might try researching the work of Charles Townes, the Nobel prize winner who has also won a Templeton prize and has contributed a great deal in the dialogue between science and religion.

Since the work of Townes is a brand new thing for you check out http://www.templetonprize.org/townes_pressrelease.html for starters.

You might also check out Zygon, the religion and science dialogue journal. http://www.zygonjournal.org

And then you might consider that wisdom is something far greater than any one of us possesses, and thus your hate for those who have different beliefs than you, and your need to ridicule and attack those who have different perspectives than you, have exactly those rights to think as you do. You just don't see them posting here with all the vitriol that you do.

And your posts are their own answer - again, while organized religion has much for which it can be criticized, having you as its attacker is a real blessing because it means that matters of substance will not be taken seriously amidst all the over the top hate that you express for faith and those who are people of faith.

 

[Negasta]

you replied: As long as you keep making up your own things to reply to, rather than to what was actually said, you will win lots of battles in your own mind. No one here has said that anyone can do anything that anyone wants to a child. We do resist the fascist designs of Dawkins on the freedom of people to have opinions separate from his, in that we have not appointed him the all-powerful one.

You can take your foot out off your mouth now if you want to.

Dawkins himself has stated in his book that he would not limit the right of people to teach to their children what they want (with regard to religion), because the solution would be worse than the problem. That is the very antithesis of fascism. He just says that is regrettable that people would wilfully teach their children demonstrable untruths in spite of vast scientific evidence to the contrary (such as :"You need religion to be moral"). Dawkins has never said that he wants to limit the right of others to think and believe what they want to, if they reached that belief themselves. He just objects to labelling children with beliefs that they are not old enough to have thought through.

In fact his book is filled with hate and invective. Organized religion can point to the existence of a deity since organized religion has been blessed with such a hate filled and spite filled misanthrope as Dawkins as its opponent. And Dawkins without his sensationalist hate speech would not make so much money selling books. So he has his own reward for his hate: money.

It is quite clear to me that you have never actually read The God Delusion, because if you had, you would not be spouting the rubbish you are. If you look at the way people criticise each other's political or economic beliefs or even their sports teams, the criticism levelled sat religion in TGD is quite mild, so why must religion always be handled with kid gloves? Why must religion have this immunity to criticism that it most certainly does not deserve? There is not a hateful or invective word in TGD, just well deserved criticism. Why is it hate speech to call a "spade a spade"? You have to be crazy to think that Dawkins is a misanthrope.

Give me a few quotes from the book that can be taken as hateful or spiteful or invective and I might give you some credence in the future.

You are obviously one of those (American) Christians that get these delusional feelings of persecution any time somebody dares to criticise your chosen invisible man in the sky. If you haven't noticed, Atheists are the most persecuted minority in America and every new poll on the subject proves it.

But then off course, I have no credibility, because anybody who dares to criticise (your) religion, is a bigot and hatemonger.

 

[AngelBoy]

47 posts - all of them to express your hate. Wow.

Your style of misdirection and making up stuff to respond to is probably really cute and impressive with your usual crowd but, darling Angel, not so impressive here.

Actually my posts are evenly divided between –

1. Sexual fetishes I like and think are really hot
2. Technology and computers
3. Political debates – global warming – the Presidential race etc
4. Religious themes

As with Dawkins book – I guess you didn’t actually read them?

It would be equally dumb of me to suggest I’d read all 1,234 of your posts.

I do admit to being prejudiced against religions – but a lot of that is because many of them are homophobic – so are fair game.

Your denomination (United Church of Christ) seems to be one of the most positive and tolerant religions. Also it doesn’t mean I hate those that do believe – in fact I find talking about it quite interesting. The world would be very boring if we all thought the same.

Clearly I think those religions that judicially murder homosexuals, strive to limit our rights or cripple our minds as children are not such nice people

I do think that my answer to point 3 was completely to the point – in that this whole discussion is about parental rights and behaviour.

I feel one weakness of your postings is that you never present a coherent argument.

I would hasten to say this does not make me hate you – in fact in a couple of posts I have tried to expand on what I think you are actually trying to say – where you seem to have been especially inarticulate.

Also I am not an intellectual snob – I think that even people who can not marshal their ideas very well deserve to have their opinion heard. Also I suspect you are probably quite a sincere guy.

– just a bit lazy when it comes to debating things - and really lazy when it comes to reading things

 

[MetaKnight]

Ok I find this to be really lame. My parents can lead me whoever they want while Im a kid. When I grow up though, its becomes my choice if I still want to go that way.

 

[AngelBoy]

Ok I find this to be really lame. My parents can lead me whoever they want while Im a kid. When I grow up though, its becomes my
choice if I still want to go that way.

What you are saying is not lame - It is a valid argument

But there is a huge advantage for a child in just accepting some things your parents and teachers tell you is true.

Indoctrination is not necessarily a bad thing – the capacity children have to be indoctrinated is arguably one advantage we have over other primates.

Parents don’t need to prove to us that crossing the highway without looking is a bad idea – we just accept it as true – any child that did decide to test this particular adult wisdom wouldn’t have a very high survival chance.

Where it becomes a problem is if they give this same certainty to other ideas (especially religious ones) that are actually not as clearly true – or in fact have no evidence at all to support them.

In theory we could in later life go down the morgue or look up accident statistics to prove that our parents were right about the risks of crossing highways – in practice this is just something we “know for sure” anyway.

The same “known for sure” feeling unfortunately also applies to some of the other ideas we were taught as well.

So – yes it is your choice – but not something many people think about if they have been indoctrinated with particular ideas.

It is no accident that what people believe is very highly correlated to what the society that raised them as a child believes.

 

[MetaKnight]

Well who really knows the truth then? Noone does. If my mom and dad guided me in what they thought was the "right path", and there was no harm on me doin so, then I'm cool with it. But heck, they dont know the truth. As much faith as they may have, there are things that make them doubt fo sure. (Such as... myself! When I came out there was SUCH drama bout it).

But that's just messing with religion itself as a whole, and that's a whole different topic.