Is forcing religion on children a form of child abuse?

[AngelBoy]

rellevance goes to what the root of the discussion is based on and that persons motives

source validity and perpective is a vital part of any discussion

go back and reread those... especially the last one

it is direct as to how it relates to the general theme of the thread and the validity of the basic arguements

Im sorry if this sounds disrespectful – But you don’t seem to have made any logical arguments at all?

A string of unrelated “sound bites” is not a reasonable answer to a perfectly valid discussion point

 

[Andreus]

i dont mean to sound arrogant or disrespectful either

you dont have a valid discussion point to answer

just a prejudicial theory that is based in flawed reasoning that was laid out in the sources i provided

 

[Andreus]

I don't see that the thread attacking atheists by quoting some extremist pro-God blogger without attribution as such was any different.

There really isn't that much to choose between ardent religious folk and ardent atheists. Both lack self-awareness and skepticism about their own subjective beliefs.

Clearly, forcing one view on children to the exclusion of others isn't a good thing. But neither is promoting one view, while also teaching others, necessarily a bad thing either. No need to pretend it's either black and white or more complicated than it need be.

spensed

that thread was a bit obtuse and i think it went over your head

you cant really think that i was agreeing with a christian philosopher, can you?

let it go

 

[AngelBoy]

i dont mean to sound arrogant or disrespectful either

you dont have a valid discussion point to answer

DUH - I may think my ideas are mostly right - but I do have some some valid dicsussion points to answer.

BTW - I use TOR - so Im not actually in Argentina - not sure how you reach the conclusion that my comments are Agentinian/Austrian/Australian?

Maybe this is the telepathic power of the faithfull?

 

[Spensed]

spensed

that thread was a bit obtuse and i think it went over your head

you cant really think that i was agreeing with a christian philosopher, can you?

let it go

People in glass minarets shouldn't throw stones. LOL.

 

[Andreus]

DUH - I may think my ideas are mostly right - but I do have some some valid dicsussion points to answer.

BTW - I use TOR - so Im not actually in Argentina - not sure how you reach the conclusion that my comments are Agentinian/Austrian/Australian?

Maybe this is the telepathic power of the faithfull?

lol

it was an observation on your tenacity, which i find admirable

 

[Kulindahr]

Two observations:

1. Any ideology allows the opting out of thinking, let alone rational thinking -- but that does not invalidate the ideology -- holding otherswise is like saying that since the last two bridges you drove over on your vacation were horrible, all bridges must be horrible.

2. Any discussion of this sort needs to first define "force" and "child abuse".

 

[AngelBoy]

Two observations:

1. Any ideology allows the opting out of thinking, let alone rational thinking -- but that does not invalidate the ideology -- holding otherswise is like saying that since the last two bridges you drove over on your vacation were horrible, all bridges must be horrible.

2. Any discussion of this sort needs to first define "force" and "child abuse".

1. I’ve never had any real problem driving over bridges – sometimes don’t even notice they’re there.

2. Just as you don’t need to define the word “discussion” every time you use it – so the meaning of the words “force” and “child abuse” are fairly self-evident – if not there’s always a dictionary (for those of us that need remedial reading help).


The word “force” clearly means more than just “inform about”. Thou the other threads about the same issue seem to have vanished – it is probably just as valid to describe atheism as a type of “religious belief” in this context.

So the rights and wrongs of (Atheist) indoctrination of children under Communism and National Socialism could equally be described by some as “Child abuse” – though others might disagree

 

[AngelBoy]

lol

it was an observation on your tenacity, which i find admirable

Think that is a compliment! LOL

But seriously - don't you think that children should be guided and informed by adults - while not being directed towards any particular belief system? (either a religious or secular system of ideas)

The evidence seems to be that Children raised in one particular beleif system tend to stay with that for the rest of their lives.

Even thou there is a huge range of belief systems that they could chose from?

While Ive got my own ideas - this is nothing to do do with whether any one of these systems is true or not - but just the extent to which these are forced on children.

There are some threads that have either been closed - or vanished on the same topic - so I should have framed my question in more general terms. It is a fair comment that some forms of atheist teachings are just as much indoctrination as any religious ones

 

[Spensed]

It is a fair comment that some forms of atheist teachings are just as much indoctrination as any religious ones

That suggests that other forms of atheist teachings are as ok as non-indoctrinating forms of religious teaching, which I happen to think is fine for the most part.

However, true atheists, I think, would argue that non-indoctrinating atheism is superior to non-indoctrinating religious education because the latter is, as you would say, not based on any proof, that's valid educationally or otherwise.

As well permit teaching of Santeria chicken sacrifice or Voodoo dolls.

 

[AngelBoy]

That suggests that other forms of atheist teachings are as ok as non-indoctrinating forms of religious teaching, which I happen to think is fine for the most part.

However, true atheists, I think, would argue that non-indoctrinating atheism is superior to non-indoctrinating religious education because the latter is, as you would say, not based on any proof, that's valid educationally or otherwise.

As well permit teaching of Santeria chicken sacrifice or Voodoo dolls.

Atheism is in fact something I don’t think should be taught.

Children should learn about the scientific method of evaluating ideas based on the evidence available.

They should also be taught that there are many different religions – and what the central beliefs of some of the major ones are. Which I guess could be described as “comparative religion”.

This should maybe include the insights of the Voodoo faith – which I personally don’t find any more bizarre than some Christian ideas.

There are some ideas that should be “forced” on children from a young age – like not crossing highways without looking first.

For other ideas (political, racial, religious etc) they should be left free to make up their own minds.

The argument that most adults are currently free to make up their own minds is simply not supported by the facts.

Of all the possible religions in the world that a person could chose (or none) – people will overwhelmingly stay with the specific brand and flavour of religious belief they were raised with as children.

Rational debate is no cure for indoctrination – more intelligent and articulate people don’t seem to arrive at better ideas – but are just better at promoting the ideas they already hold.

Being an atheist is a “No Brainer” from this perspective – that the other side of a discussion has no evidence at all that what they are saying is true is normally quite a show stopper.

 

[Spensed]

Being an atheist is a “No Brainer” from this perspective – that the other side of a discussion has no evidence at all that what they are saying is true is normally quite a show stopper.

Only to someone who chooses to be an atheist. You're sortof saying what I said a true atheist would say. But there are many folk who don't think that religion or faith has to be subject to scientific proof. To them their faith and its effects are real without such proof.

As I say, I think people are going to want to pass on their values and principles to their children and that includes religion or, as the case may be atheism. And I don't see a particular problem with them doing that provided the kids are also taught what else is out there.

It isn't my experience that people automatically follow whatever religion they happen to be brought up in (excluding the obvious cases of indoctrination, which I don't think anyone here supports).

 

[AngelBoy]

It isn't my experience that people automatically follow whatever religion they happen to be brought up in (excluding the obvious cases of indoctrination, which I don't think anyone here supports).

I think your own experience may not be statistically significant in this case.

How come the vast majority of Italians are Catholic and the vast majority of Iranians are She’ite Muslims?

Is that just because the people that lived there carefully considered all the religions available – and all happened by pure coincidence to come to the same conclusion?

Denying that indoctrination of children actually happens isn’t a very tenable idea based on the self evident facts.

I guess you could argue that the consumption of olive oil in Italy is the thing that makes them Catholic – and that otherwise they’d be just as likely to chose any other religion to fervently believe in.

On the other hand the strong correlation between what they are taught as children and what they believe as adults seems more likely

 

[Spensed]

^ Athough some might disagree, many Italian Catholics and Iranian Muslims and such are clearly indoctrinated in the sense that their core belief system is inculcated to the exclusion of (to a lesser or greater extent) other belief systems.

My own experience, which really wasn't that unique, was that, if you didn't exclude other belief systems, the fact that there's a focus on one doesn't preclude people making up their own minds.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that's just saying the obvious.

 

[AngelBoy]

Athough some might disagree, many Italian Catholics and Iranian Muslims and such are clearly indoctrinated in the sense that their core belief system is inculcated to the exclusion of (to a lesser or greater extent) other belief systems.

My own experience, which really wasn't that unique, was that, if you didn't exclude other belief systems, the fact that there's a focus on one doesn't preclude people making up their own minds.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that's just saying the obvious.

What you are missing is that people don't switch brands of religion.

This could be because they have been taught the "one true one" - in this case they are very lucky - however others have obviously been taught "untrue" religions.

So yes it does seem that a "focus" on one religion isn't a neutral thing.

Whats new - your experience must be totally unique

 

[Spensed]

^ And what you're missing is that there's a distinction between indoctrination and education.

Sleep on it. You'll figure it out. Well, OK, maybe not. BBFN.

 

[Spensed]

^ I think atheism is a choice rather an a conclusion in the sense that, faced with the same evidence, different folks come to different conclusions, that is they choose the conclusion that makes sense to them.

While not really disagreeing with your potato-chip-cloud point, it isn't as straightforward as that. Think of it in terms of poetry. A poem envisioning clouds being made up of potato chips has limited truth to it....some visual similarity, humor, etc. A poem envisaging the whole Garden of Eden, God the Father stuff, etc. is more complex and survives because, in its own terms, it touches maybe on greater truths. Love one another and what have you.

While I personally don't think the Christian or the Muslim or whatever religious poems survive scrutiny beyond a given point, I can see that certain imaginative truths in them aren't necessarily invalid simply because they don't survive scientific scrunity.

Also given that science is incomplete and has been wrong, one has at least be open to the possiblity that atheism is just another poem or, if you like, fallible belief system.

 

[Kulindahr]

1. I’ve never had any real problem driving over bridges – sometimes don’t even notice they’re there.

What does that have to do with anything????

2. Just as you don’t need to define the word “discussion” every time you use it – so the meaning of the words “force” and “child abuse” are fairly self-evident – if not there’s always a dictionary (for those of us that need remedial reading help).

The word “force” clearly means more than just “inform about”. Thou the other threads about the same issue seem to have vanished – it is probably just as valid to describe atheism as a type of “religious belief” in this context.

Self-evident? Most people consider that "child abuse" means physical violence. Others include yelling. Others include feeding them junk food. Others include letting them watch violent TV. Some include being naked in front of them. Some include smoking around them, or drinking where they can see it.
As for "force"... from your comment, I presume that "indoctrination" is not included, so indoctrinating them is fine. And if you believe it's true, not indoctrinating them could be child abuse....

So the rights and wrongs of (Atheist) indoctrination of children under Communism and National Socialism could equally be described by some as “Child abuse” – though others might disagree

Yes -- which is why the question here should be "is forcing an ideology on children a form of child abuse".

 

[Kulindahr]

This is the position that I find most baffling. These same people could also hold that clouds are actually made up of potato chips without submitting to the rigors of scientific proof. Sure they could be content and happy in their beliefs but I would be hard-pressed to "honour their beliefs" and give them any credence at all.

I think it was Chesterton who coined the phrase "reasonable belief". C. S. Lewis (along with J.R.R. Tolkien and others) was influenced by this, and sensibly threw out of his consideration any religion that did not depend on reasonable belief.
Believing in clouds made of potato chips is not reasonable -- if they were, rain would consist of something like polyunsaturated fats, and we'd never get snow.
Only in the Abrahamic religions is there a challenge by God to check things out, to test it -- a definite point in their favor, because the challenge itself is what would be expected of a system of reasonable believe.
But note that this isn't the same thing as saying "rational belief". Some things in a belief system may go beyond the rational, while remaining reasonable given the basic premises of that system; thus a faith which is demonstrably in tune with science and thus reasonable may step beyond the rational, so long as that does not violate basic concepts. And some of those "steps beyond reason" may actually be found to validate or explain or reflect things at the lower level, and thus be judged reasonable themselves.
As an example, stories of Jesus the boy turning clay pigeons into real pigeons aren't reasonable, but fanciful and magical -- while turning water into wine is reasonable, because if He is God, He's merely doing what God does all the time through grapes and fermentation -- He's just taking a shortcut.

 

[Kulindahr]

While I'm thinking of C.S. Lewis....

I think he's the sort who would have made the kind of bishop or prelate AngelBoy and others here would like: when the Church of England ended compulsory attendance at chapel services in schools and universities, Lewis applauded, arguing that compelled worship isn't worship at all (and thus God wouldn't want it), and that those who continued to go would be sorted out as actual believers, and that it brought to an end the appearance (and actuality) of tyranny by the Church.