Is teaching religion child abuse?

reply to post by mamabeth


No, it's not abuse. It's no more abuse than telling the kids Santa is real or the tooth fairy or reading them fairy tales.

However I think parents should be cautious when teaching their children religion because while their beliefs might make perfect sense to them a child will usually find religion very confusing hence why typically at a young age all a child knows is the basic stories and morals. Also, guilt is an inevitable byproduct when indoctrinating children with religion (at least as far as Christianity is concerned) so I'd hope that any parent would refrain from filling their kids head with talk of hell, sin, damnation, God's vengeance, etc.

So no I don't think it's abuse but I do think there is a danger there depending on what is taught to the kid. The danger is that the kid could end up trapped in a certain box, the religion is placing parameters on his/her thoughts that are hard to break out of. Overcoming religious programming can take years for many people if it is instilled in a hardcore borderline cult level.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Parallex

 

yeah, because you sound sooo rational and there's no way you're going to come off as a "fundie". got anything to actually add to the discussion or did you just want to spread your hatred about a bit?

It's not hatred - it's pity. If you're religious, I pity you.

Have you ever known anyone that has been abused because of religion? I know far too many people. My brother actively helps victims of religious abuse, so I get to hear all of the gory details.

You refuse to even think that you're wrong don't you? The only thing worse than a fundie is an arrogant fundie.

Parallex.

Originally posted by sirnex
And I have many more stories if your interested in what a true selfless act is.

it's just a philosophical point of view.

i could claim you took the lady in because it made you feel helpful, positive about yourself, you got something from it so it wasn't selfless.you mentioned it here so it isn't selfless.

mostly it's selfless, but not totally. in the same way that there is some small elemnt of fear in religous morality but most of it is just because it's the right thing to do.

generally, religion doesn't make a bad person good.

No wonder priests rape little boys and think they can get away with it.

so you agree then, morality and religion are not necessarily linked?

Not the only way it can be taught, but certainly teaching in such a manner *is* abusive. Unless you don't agree?

that was the point of the post you responded to. you might want to read the entire post before you hit the reply to button.

reply to post by pieman

i could claim you took the lady in because it made you feel helpful, positive about yourself, you got something from it so it wasn't selfless.you mentioned it here so it isn't selfless.

How can that be the same thing? It is internal. Something he decided for himself.

Behaving morally because you fear something or want a reward is entirely different.

How can you compare these two?

Originally posted by Parallex
You refuse to even think that you're wrong don't you?

you're telling me what i think now?

Have you ever known anyone that has been abused because of religion?

no, i've never even heard of anyone abused because of religion, unless you're thinking of those hoax stories about satanism in the 80's.

and if your brother is discussing the people he helps with you, he's a jerk.

The only thing worse than a fundie is an arrogant fundie.

agreed.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
How can that be the same thing? It is internal. Something he decided for himself.

Behaving morally because you fear something or want a reward is entirely different.

How can you compare these two?

reward is reward, i don't see the difference between the reward he gets from feeling he is righteous and the feeling a religious person gets from thinking god finds the righteous.

there's no point in just telling me they are different, if you want to change my point of view you'll need to explain the difference.

reply to post by pieman

see, now we're back to specifics of doctrine, i'm not going to defend every single christian perspective any more than i expect you to defend every atheistic perspective.

Well atheists tend to be pretty well in agreement as to their perspective ie they don't believe

again, telling you children what you believe to be the truth or encouraging your children to believe as you do is not, in itself, abuse.

And to a degree I agree , I believe that eating yellow snow is not smart so I advise my kids against it for obvious reasons which is a specific.

give me some evidence or logical argument that the actual religious belief is destructive to the child, physically or mentally.

In many societies it is considered unnecessary and "inhumane" to crop the beaks of poultry chicks for our consumption.

In some societies the removal of the clitoris or other mutilation of the female genitalia is considered a religious right, allthough the vitim is not consulted and has no choice.

In some societies the mutilation on the male genitalia is considered a pact with a man in the sky, again the victim is not consulted at the time and has no choice in the matter.

Later in life some of the victims abhors the practice and some accept it as part of the religion forced upon them .

To be fair in some cases the practices have become less traumatic for the child and some abusers have even stopped using their teeth to do the job.

Now her's the thing, If tomorrow for no apparent reason I decided to remove a perfectly healthy portion of my child's' body because a voice in my head told me to and/or I read somewhere it would benefit my childs relationship with the voice in my head, well I need not elaborate on the consequences of my actions.
Needless to say I would be considered an abuser of children and put on a list.


Here's another thing (based on a true account of questioning law enforcement) If I marry a woman who is thick and has to be instructed how to attend to her womanly duties around the home. Should the woman not comply to the instructions as I or my deity see fit and I inform the woman that she will be punished by the deity, I will immediately (should I admit my actions) be guilty of emotionally abusing this person.

Apparently regardless of this womans' inability to think for herself she has the right not to feel threatened in any way by another s imaginary friends or feel compelled to act in anyway out of fear of repercussions for no compliance.

When questioned as to the minimum level of retardation required in order for the woman to be treated in the same manner as the children the (understandable) revulsion exhibited by the policewoman for anyone that would even consider treating a child in that way to begin with was intergalactic to say the least.

You can check this out for yourself dude, phone around a few women s hostels ask them if creating fear in the mind of another person in order to have them comply is abusive.

Oh, by the way I have done this but it was not in relation to religion per se.

Originally posted by Deaf AlienWhat is wrong with teaching children the golden rule? There is no need to involve god in it.

Alright, DA ?
I would say that teaching a child the golden rule is pretty meaningless if you don't involve God, or a moral authority.
Without God, moralilty is just based on individual relativism, therefore by teaching a child the golden rule you are forcing your unsubstantiated morality onto your child, and indoctrinating him or her with your arbitrary morals.
Of course, I am not suggesting that someone should raise their child to be amoral ( I firmly believe in the golden rule ), I'm just pointing out that teaching your child a religious belief is no different whatsoever to teaching him or her your personal morality.

reply to post by Benji1999

I would say that teaching a child the golden rule is pretty meaningless if you don't involve God, or a moral authority.

How does that work? Which god will you involve in teaching children the golden rule? Jehovah is not a good god to involve because he is a war god. There are many gods.

The Golden Rule is common sense. It is how we live and interact with other people in society.

Without God, moralilty is just based on individual relativism, therefore by teaching a child the golden rule you are forcing your unsubstantiated morality onto your child, and indoctrinating him or her with your arbitrary morals.

How is it unsubstantiated and arbitrary? It has worked well for thousands of years. Besides, it's common sense. I would go as far to say that we do not need to teach children that because they can see that everyday in their lives.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
I think it's borderline child abuse when you raise children to fight against critical thinking.

Kids should be raised to ask plenty of questions, and think logically about life. If instead you indoctrinate them to "have faith," and other kinds of nonsense, then you're robbing them of a fruitful mind.

It doesn't leave physical scars, but it is a kind of abuse, I think.

Alright, Kaytagg ?
The problem I find with this kind of reasoning is the self-defeating logic of atheist thinking.
Teaching religion can not be child abuse, because the atheist world-view sais that the concept of child abuse doesn't exist. It's arbitrary.
Just to point out that I'm not having a go at atheists, but I feel that they sometimes ignore exactly what their world-view entails.

reply to post by pieman

it's just a philosophical point of view.

Are you trying to tell me that we can justify selfishness by merely placing it into a philosophical view?

i could claim you took the lady in because it made you feel helpful, positive about yourself, you got something from it so it wasn't selfless.you mentioned it here so it isn't selfless.

You could claim that, yes, but you are not me nor were you aware of my actions from years ago prior to me relaying the story. For you to assume my intentions is for you to make a complete ass of yourself. Me and my wife help others because it's the right thing to do, not because we expect anything in return.

mostly it's selfless, but not totally. in the same way that there is some small elemnt of fear in religous morality but most of it is just because it's the right thing to do.

here is the definition of selfless you nitwit.

altruistic: showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others source

Don't tell me what selflessness is if you don't know what it is yourself. You've already alluded to your possible true character earlier with that statement you made. Others are not like you, believe it or not.

generally, religion doesn't make a bad person good.

I never claimed otherwise, in fact I can't even figure out why this statement is being made in regards to the discussion of selflessness.

so you agree then, morality and religion are not necessarily linked?

I never claimed otherwise, if you believe I have then please quote the relevant statement made by me. No, I don't believe morality and religion are linked. We can have moral people without the need for archaic superstitions.

reply to post by Benji1999

because the atheist world-view sais that the concept of child abuse doesn't exist.

Whoa, where in the hell are you pulling that BS garbage from?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

No, it's not abuse. It's no more abuse than telling the kids Santa is real or the tooth fairy or reading them fairy tales.

The child only considers santa once a year and santa would never torture a child for all eternity for thinking about sex.

Hey even the Grinch changed his mind.

reply to post by pieman

give me some evidence or logical argument that the actual religious belief is destructive to the child, physically or mentally.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
How does that work? Which god will you involve in teaching children the golden rule? Jehovah is not a good god to involve because he is a war god. There are many gods.

Whichever God or Gods the parents believe in.
Once again, I'm not saying that non-religious parents shouldn't raise their children with the golden rule, I'm pointing out that without a moral authority ( such as God ) then the concept of 'good' morality is just as imaginary to the atheist world-view as religion is.

The Golden Rule is common sense. It is how we live and interact with other people in society.

It's not common sense, as it depends on each individual and what he wants out of life.
If someone wants to murder someone, then it's clearly not common sense to live your life by the golden rule.
It's how some of us live and interact with each other, sadly there are plenty that don't live like this.

How is it unsubstantiated and arbitrary? It has worked well for thousands of years. Besides, it's common sense. I would go as far to say that we do not need to teach children that because they can see that everyday in their lives.

It's unsubstantiated without a benevolent God, because there's absolutely nothing to say that the golden rule is correct. It's arbitrary because it depends on the individual in question.
''It has worked well for thousands of years'' is not necessarily true because once again it depends on the person in question's definition of ''working well''. It hasn't worked well for a burglar who's incarcerated because of laws based around it.
Also, in my opinion, it can't really be said to have worked well for thousands of years, because it's impossible to compare it against anything else.
It could equally be said that religion has worked well for thousands of years.
It depends on the child in question whether it's common sense. If the child dreams of being wealthy later in life, then it may well be common sense for him or her to peddle drugs or run an extortion racket.

reply to post by moocowman


That right there is serious child abuse. You can see in their faces.

reply to post by andrewh7


But it took atheist to bring it to the supreme court! Just like the BS about the use of god in the pledge of allegiance. So by the same logic a Muslim cannot pray when his religion requires him [in the US] and every other religion should not get any special treatment for their beliefs? Or is it only Christianity that the atheist single out?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by moocowman

 

That right there is serious child abuse. You can see in their faces.

No, you cannot look at it from the perspective of the child (well that's the argument) only the adult, this is a religious thing between the adults and the gods.

Desmond Morris is in complete agreement with you (and I) and points out how this religious practice is basically child mutilation but the religious can get away with it.

What is notable from the video is how Morris explains the snake shedding the skin story.

Now our revulsion would go through the roof if the mutilators were slitting the throats of the children but in reality who's to stop them if this is what they believe their god wants ?

Would that be the same god that spoke to George Bush and told him to pick up his arms and start killing?

May be a slightly different thing but the results are the same and the excuse is the same, when we remove religion we remove some pis poor excuses for the abuse of those who cannot fend for themselves.

Hey I'm not stupid I know there will always be other excuses but it makes sense to remove an institutionalized one before looking at an individual one ?

reply to post by Benji1999

Originally posted by Deaf Alien How does that work? Which god will you involve in teaching children the golden rule? Jehovah is not a good god to involve because he is a war god. There are many gods. Whichever God or Gods the parents believe in.

No gods in my house friend, yet my kids are ok with the "golden suggestion", They screw up they have to consider their actions and consequences to others not blame the bogeyman and then beg another bogeyman for forgiveness for fear of the unspeakable.

reply to post by hangedman13


The atheists like to pick on the christians,because they can get away with
it.