I understand that the title of this thread is rather contentious, but allow me to elaborate.
There seems to be a rather common meme in atheist circles that raising children with religion could be construed as a form of child abuse because you are not allowing them to develop their own opinions on the nature of the universe and spiritual concepts and are imposing an ideology on them when they are too young to think independently of their parents. Now, even though I'm an atheist, I've always had a problem with this sentiment. Part of it is because there seems to be a bad habit of going to extremes when discussing this concept. The immediate example is threats of violence or excommunication from families. Most religious families, in my experience, have been quite mild-mannered and not prone to that sort of behavior. It just seems like a lot of this boils down to uncharitable opinions about religious families.
Here's where things get problematic for me. While I don't mind children being raised with religion, I do find infant circumcision (often a practice originating from religion) very troubling. I don't think religion should be tied to government because it has a track record of having poor results. Even more tame relationships between religion and government, such as prohibition, have had fairly disastrous results. I don't think creationism/intelligent design should be taught in schools, as it is sophistry with the deliberate attempt to undercut many of the scientific discoveries that inform our modern society. I think there should be separation of church and state, as, ideally, this arrangement benefits both parties.
Basically, I don't like authoritarian approaches to anything, including religion. I guess my problem is trying to figure out whether or not a child being taught religion by their families is authoritarian and possibly by extension, abusive. How do I reconcile these two perspectives on the subject?
There seems to be a rather common meme in atheist circles that raising children with religion could be construed as a form of child abuse because you are not allowing them to develop their own opinions on the nature of the universe and spiritual concepts and are imposing an ideology on them when they are too young to think independently of their parents. Now, even though I'm an atheist, I've always had a problem with this sentiment. Part of it is because there seems to be a bad habit of going to extremes when discussing this concept. The immediate example is threats of violence or excommunication from families. Most religious families, in my experience, have been quite mild-mannered and not prone to that sort of behavior. It just seems like a lot of this boils down to uncharitable opinions about religious families.
Pretty much.
We must also recognize that religion is not the type of opinion one can be indoctrinated in.
Here's where things get problematic for me. While I don't mind children being raised with religion, I do find infant circumcision (often a practice originating from religion) very troubling.
That's fair, but why?
Basically, I don't like authoritarian approaches to anything, including religion. I guess my problem is trying to figure out whether or not a child being taught religion by their families is authoritarian and possibly by extension, abusive. How do I reconcile these two perspectives on the subject?
I think the issue is whether it is possible to teach religion without being authoritarian.
I am a father of four and I'm raising all of my children Catholic. Look at it like another way of teaching self respect, discipline, and respect for others.
I think the notion that it's abusive is funny, since most kids do the exact OPPOSITE of what their parents say anyway!
We must also recognize that religion is not the type of opinion one can be indoctrinated in.
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you mind expanding on that?
Quote from Highroller »
That's fair, but why?
Because it's usually not medically necessary and has no real medical benefits with the risk of long-term physical and psychological damage. Barring medical emergencies, I don't really see why this practice needs to exist. It's a lot of risk for very little, if any, benefit. In worst cases, it's a cosmetic decision. In terms of consent, it's also an issue for me. At least you can leave religion if it no longer carries meaning for you. You can't really undo missing portions of your genitals.
Quote from "Highroller" »
I think the issue is whether it is possible to teach religion without being authoritarian.
That sounds right. I suppose it's possible, but I'm not sure what that would really look like. It would have to entail that parents raise their children with religion without the expectation that they carry that ideology to the grave.
No it's not in fact many studies show children raised with religion are better adjusted and have better overall mental health. As far as cirumcusions go they are too young to remember them and I have not met anyone who felt upset about being circumcised as a child, though it's not really a topic I discuss very often. Many people convert or developed different beliefs later in life and honestly I feel the idea of calling teaching religion to your children child abuse is laughable.
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you mind expanding on that?
Religion is not the only type of idea one can indoctrinate a person in.
Like, the issue is indoctrination, right? Child abuse because of indoctrination. But religious indoctrination isn't the only form of indoctrination.
Because it's usually not medically necessary and has no real medical benefits with the risk of long-term physical and psychological damage. Barring medical emergencies, I don't really see why this practice needs to exist. It's a lot of risk for very little, if any, benefit. In worst cases, it's a cosmetic decision. In terms of consent, it's also an issue for me. At least you can leave religion if it no longer carries meaning for you. You can't really undo missing portions of your genitals.
Yeah, those are pretty valid reasons to find the process troubling.
Personally, I don't believe in interfering with circumcision because there is a religious reason behind it, and a successful circumcision has no inherent medical problems associated with it, but it mystifies me why anyone who isn't Jewish would elect to have the process for their children.
Also, what situation would result in circumcision being "medically necessary?"
That sounds right. I suppose it's possible, but I'm not sure what that would really look like. It would have to entail that parents raise their children with religion without the expectation that they carry that ideology to the grave.
I think you've described what that would look like.
Look at it like another way of teaching self respect, discipline, and respect for others.
Is religion necessary in order to do that?
Quote from Moxnix »
No it's not in fact many studies show children raised with religion are better adjusted and have better overall mental health.
I tend to be highly skeptical of studies done of subjects like this, as there is lots of wiggle room for confirmation bias. I'm pretty sure I could find a "credible" study stating the exact opposite.
Quote from Moxnix »
honestly I feel the idea of calling teaching religion to your children child abuse is laughable.
Why is that, exactly?
Quote from Highroller »
Religion is not the only type of idea one can indoctrinate a person in.
Like, the issue is indoctrination, right? Child abuse because of indoctrination. But religious indoctrination isn't the only form of indoctrination.
Okay, but does that make other forms of indoctrination acceptable as well? If not, why would religion get special consideration?
Quote from Highroller »
Also, what situation would result in circumcision being "medically necessary."
There are certain conditions where the foreskin can actually cause damage to the rest of the *****. Paraphimosis is a good example: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442883-overview(Link has illustrations, potentially NSFW. - Blinking Spirit) In this instance, the pulled back and inflamed foreskin can actually restrict blood flow to the rest of the *****, which obviously can have pretty terrible consequences. Circumcision is a common remedy for this condition, as it completely removes the problem tissue.
Quote from Highroller »
I think you've described what that would look like.
Did I, though? I mean, religion, like all ideas, needs to propagate in order to survive. If raise your children in religion and don't expect them to stay in it, doesn't that kind of defeat the point?
Okay, but does that make other forms of indoctrination acceptable as well?
No.
If not, why would religion get special consideration?
That's my point.
There are certain conditions where the foreskin can actually cause damage to the rest of the *****. Paraphimosis is a good example: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442883-overview In this instance, the pulled back and inflamed foreskin can actually restrict blood flow to the rest of the *****, which obviously can have pretty terrible consequences. Circumcision is a common remedy for this condition, as it completely removes the problem tissue.
Oh huh. Never knew that.
Did I, though? I mean, religion, like all ideas, needs to propagate in order to survive. If raise your children in religion and don't expect them to stay in it, doesn't that kind of defeat the point?
I think the point is that whether or not they stay in it is their decision.
Why? That's simple look at the definition of child abuse not even a massive stretch in logic could ever knock teaching religion into that criterion espically considering the Burdon of proof falling on the one making the claim. As to why I would laugh I find the idea rediculos so I would laugh.
Reframe your topic. It is simply ludicrous to say that raising children with religion is child abuse.
Why? Because if it were so, it would be mean that the vast majority of humanity both past and present was subject to child abuse. It would render the term meaningless.
Child abuse would simply cease being something controversial.
What if you dubbed a slap across the face as brutal attacks? What if you started calling insults a crime against humanity.
All it serves to do is make you seem like someone not worth listening to. You become an exaggerator. You become someone that others don't take seriously.
The media, and social media both LOVE this kind of strained hyperbole. It arouses people's passions and generates clicks. But just because the media likes to characterize things in hyperbole and sound bytes doesn't mean that you should start thinking about things in terms of hyperbole and soundbytes.
Reframe the topic. You might say teaching religion to children is objectionable. You might say it is not a good policy.
But teaching religion to children is not child abuse, nor is it rape, murder, manslaughter, assault, a crime against humanity, etc.
All of those have their own definitions. Let those definitions stand, and if you find religion otherwise objectionable, articulate why without resorting to irrational characterizations which discredit you.
Why? That's simple look at the definition of child abuse not even a massive stretch in logic could ever knock teaching religion into that criterion espically considering the Burdon of proof falling on the one making the claim. As to why I would laugh I find the idea rediculos so I would laugh.
That's fair enough I suppose. I should reiterate that I'm not in the camp of atheists that thinks religious teaching is a form of child abuse. I appear to have some cognitive dissonance on the subject and I am attempting to resolve it through debate. Though, according to your definition, more hardline atheists would categorize it under "emotional abuse."
Quote from Highroller »
That's my point.
Okay, so let me understand. Your point is all indoctrination, including religious indoctrination, is, for lack of a better word, bad. I suppose my next question would be, wouldn't raising children with religion necessarily involve some element of indoctrination? Being realistic, how many religious parents are okay with their children leaving their faith if they dedicate time and effort into imprinting this idea of god and their religion into them?
Quote from "Highroller" »
I think the point is that whether or not they stay in it is their decision.
Of course, but isn't the idea that they don't? Teaching religion to children is predicated on the idea of teaching moral and societal values to children based on the teachings of God, no?
I'm sorry if I'm not running at 100% effectiveness right now. Bonded with my parents and that usually involves liquor.
The media, and social media both LOVE this kind of strained hyperbole. It arouses people's passions and generates clicks. But just because the media likes to characterize things in hyperbole and sound bytes doesn't mean that you should start thinking about things in terms of hyperbole and soundbytes.
Sure. I try not to take what social media says to heart. I've learned important lessons from the snowball effect that "social justice" has in these spaces and I extend that lesson to everything else.
Quote from "TomCat26 »
All of those have their own definitions. Let those definitions stand, and if you find religion otherwise objectionable, articulate why without resorting to irrational characterizations which discredit you.
I think there is a contingency of atheists who have had bad experience with religion and their families. I am not one of them. I don't find religion objectionable. I mostly just find it unnecessary. It's not compulsory to being a good person or living a good life.
I know a couple whose child was afraid of a particular toy frog. They took advantage of this; when the child was disobedient, they told him the frog wouldn't like that, to scare him into obedience. When they wanted to keep him out of a room, they'd tell him the frog was in there. He lived in terror of that frog. Was that a mild case of emotional abuse? I think a case could be made that it was, and I'd regard using the threat of Hell to ensure good behaviour as a similar scenario.
I don't think raising your child in your belief system is necessarily child abuse, but there are certainly ways it could be, depending on the belief system.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I would REALLY like to meet one person whose opinions and life-views haven't, in some shape or form, been influenced by the opinions and life-views of their parents.
This is why this whole argument seems utterly ridiculous to me. No, I don't think they're against raising children in a religious life-view because it's stunting their way of seeing the world (if anything this kind of argumentation is just plain wrong- just on an anecdotal basis the majority of fierce atheists on this board alone are fierce atheists BECAUSE they were raised in a religious family and detested it), but rather because they just don't like religion and want to find any way of attacking it.
But, seriously, if you're raising your kid by telling them that God doesn't exist, you're doing everything that you're accusing Christians of doing.
Why? Because if it were so, it would be mean that the vast majority of humanity both past and present was subject to child abuse. It would render the term meaningless.
Child abuse would simply cease being something controversial.
The vast majority of humanity past and present has been subject to child abuse. I don't think that's even in dispute. Corporal punishment was the norm all over the planet until the second half of the 20th Century, and even now it's only really unfashionable in the First World.
Just because a practice is common doesn't mean it is not harmful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Why? Because if it were so, it would be mean that the vast majority of humanity both past and present was subject to child abuse. It would render the term meaningless.
Child abuse would simply cease being something controversial.
The vast majority of humanity past and present has been subject to child abuse. I don't think that's even in dispute. Corporal punishment was the norm all over the planet until the second half of the 20th Century, and even now it's only really unfashionable in the First World.
Just because a practice is common doesn't mean it is not harmful.
fine. but what's the point of getting it attached to a loaded term which is so evocative? People only have so much emotional capital to give.
Am I now supposed to think that I was abused? That the founding fathers were abused? That every person in america raised on religion was abused?
Are bible studies for children now institutions of abuse?
This is like the bible saying if you hate your brother you are a murderer. 1 John 3:15
Sure hating your brother is bad. But equating it to murder? Not even fundamentalist christians take that statement literally.
fine. but what's the point of getting it attached to a loaded term which is so evocative?
What other term would you like to give for child abuse? That's about as straightforward a phrasing as can be.
The fact of the matter is there are certainly examples in which religion can be child abuse. The question is the OP is asking is whether or not they all are. Moreover, the OP is stating that he himself thinks that the people who would argue as such are wrong, and I don't believe anyone in this thread has thusfar disagreed with him, so there's really no call for you getting so defensive.
Not even fundamentalist christians take that statement literally.
I would not put limitations on what fundamentalist Christians can take literally.
Am I now supposed to think that I was abused? That the founding fathers were abused? That every person in america raised on religion was abused?
Are bible studies for children now institutions of abuse?
Maybe. The question can't be answered one way or the other by looking at the number of children affected. That is simply not a relevant consideration. Criminality is not a popularity contest. To determine whether or not an act is a crime, you have to examine the elements of the crime and see whether the act matches them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Am I now supposed to think that I was abused? That the founding fathers were abused? That every person in america raised on religion was abused?
Are bible studies for children now institutions of abuse?
Maybe. The question can't be answered one way or the other by looking at the number of children affected. That is simply not a relevant consideration. Criminality is not a popularity contest. To determine whether or not an act is a crime, you have to examine the elements of the crime and see whether the act matches them.
You're right criminality is not a popularity contest.
Child abuse is a crime, the criminality of which can be determined by whether or not the elements of child abuse are met.
Teaching religion to children does not fall within the ambit of those elements, by any federal or state laws and their case law.
The question is effectively dispatched without anything more to say on the matter.
I reiterate my answer to the OP, reframe the question.
Do I think forcing a certain religion on a small person who has yet to decide what they choose to believe is child abuse? I can see the argument for both sides.
Instead expose the child to many different belief systems and let them decide on their own. Just because someone is raised a certain religion does not mean it will be right for them when they are older and able to research and decide on their own.
In my opinion, parenting is about exposing your children to as many possibilities as possible, so when they grow up they can make an informed decision on their own and become a functioning, contributing member of society. It shouldnt matter what religion they are any more then what political party they back or what race they choose to marry. All are personal choices that the parents should not force on their child.
But parents are human so parenting is a flawed process.
fine. but what's the point of getting it attached to a loaded term which is so evocative?
What other term would you like to give for child abuse? That's about as straightforward a phrasing as can be.
The fact of the matter is there are certainly examples in which religion can be child abuse. The question is the OP is asking is whether or not they all are. Moreover, the OP is stating that he himself thinks that the people who would argue as such are wrong, and I don't believe anyone in this thread has thusfar disagreed with him, so there's really no call for you getting so defensive.
Not even fundamentalist christians take that statement literally.
I would not put limitations on what fundamentalist Christians can take literally.
Id like to say first and foremost that if I sound defensive I appreciate you telling me. I have been told that sometimes when I write it sounds like attacking the other party. Most of my writing is adversarial, and I do that for a living. I honestly I don't always see it, but that's not really a good thing.
Secondly, I took the question directly. Raising children with religion is not child abuse. If one were to raise children with religion in a manner that constituted abuse, it would not be the act of raising children with religion that would be the crime, but the specific acts attached to it-- acts like sex abuse.
As for this
>Confused What other term would you like to give for child abuse? That's about as straightforward a phrasing as can be.
I have no contention with the term child abuse. My contention is called raising children with religion child abuse. Since this statement cannot be taken literally it's strained hyperbole that leads nowhere.
I've done some digging and it turns out much of this sentiment comes from the musings of Richard Dawkins and his book The God Delusion. Specifically, Chapter 9, which is titled "Childhood, abuse and escape from religion." I found a digital copy of the book online. I'm not sure if linking to it violates any forum policies on copyrighted material, so I've copypasta'd some quotes that I felt were relevant to the conversation:
On childhood trauma
“Even without physical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice persists to this day, almost entirely unquestioned. To question it is my main purpose in this chapter.”
(Anecdote from “an American woman”)
“At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents' church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote:
'Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yucky' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest - but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares. “
(Dawkins' reflection)
“'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.' The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds.“
On leaving
(A play Dawkins saw, called Letting Go of God)
“My first call from my mother was more of a scream. 'Atheist? ATHEIST?!?!' My dad called and said, 'You have betrayed your family, your school, your city.' It was like I had sold secrets to the Russians. They both said they weren't going to talk to me any more. My dad said, 'I don't even want you to come to my funeral.' After I hung up, I thought, 'Just try and stop me.'”
(A conversation with college professors)
“Two professors from one university in America wrote to me independently about their parents. One said that his mother suffers permanent grief because she fears for his immortal soul. The other one said that his father wishes he had never been born, so convinced is he that his son is going to spend eternity in hell. “
On Upbringing
(Dawkins' colleague, Nicholas Humphrey)
“Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas - no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no God-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. “
(Dawkins' reaction to Humphrey's quote regarding mummified Incan girl)
“Humphrey's point - and mine - is that, regardless of whether she was a willing victim or not, there is strong reason to suppose that she would not have been willing if she had been in full possession of the facts. For example, suppose she had known that the sun is really a ball of hydrogen, hotter than a million degrees Kelvin, converting itself into helium by nuclear fusion, and that it originally formed from a disc of gas out of which the rest of the solar system, including Earth, also condensed . . . Presumably, then, she would not have worshipped it as a god, and this would have altered her perspective on being sacrificed to propitiate it”
(On 1972 Supreme Court case involving an Amish family pulling their child from school on religious gorunds)
“The majority of the Supreme Court drew a parallel with some of the positive values of monastic orders, whose presence in our society arguably enriches it. But, as Humphrey points out, there is a crucial difference. Monks volunteer for the monastic life of their own free will. Amish children never volunteered to be Amish; they were born into it and they had no choice.”
(On arguments from cultural diversity)
“There is something breathtakingly condescending, as well as inhumane, about the sacrificing of anyone, especially children, on the altar of 'diversity' and the virtue of preserving a variety of religious traditions. The rest of us are happy with our cars and computers, our vaccines and antibiotics. But you quaint little people with your bonnets and breeches, your horse buggies, your archaic dialect and your earth-closet privies, you enrich our lives. Of course you must be allowed to trap your children with you in your seventeenth-century time warp, otherwise something irretrievable would be lost to us: a part of the wonderful diversity of human culture. A small part of me can see something in this. But the larger part is made to feel very queasy indeed.”
(Regarding a UK case and religion in school)
“What a charming picture! Shaquille and Clare went to lunch together, vigorously arguing their cases and defending their incompatible beliefs. But is it really so charming? Isn't it actually rather a deplorable picture that Mr McQuoid has painted? Upon what, after all, did Shaquille and Clare base their argument? What cogent evidence was each one able to bring to bear, in their vigorous and constructive debate? Clare and Shaquille each simply asserted that her or his holy book was superior, and that was that. That is apparently all they said, and that, indeed, is all you can say when you have been taught that truth comes from scripture rather than from evidence. Clare and Shaquille and their fellows were not being educated. They were being let down by their school, and their school principal was abusing, not their bodies, but their minds.”
What are everyone's thoughts on these quotes? I think he brings up some interesting points, though his anecdotes seem to fall into the same problem of citing the most extreme examples. Though he does make arguments for how more tame religious teaching and progressive concepts about cultural diversity also factor in. Though it does refer to ritual sacrifice, I did find the pondering of the mummified Incan child quite compelling. Would she have consented to ritual sacrifice if she possessed knowledge of the true nature of the sun that they worshiped? The argument seems to imply that children being raised with religion is a form of mental abuse because it's a deliberate torpor on the cognitive and intellectual development of the child.
@Nodrog.
My opinion is simply that raising children can be child abuse, but isn't necessarily. It depends on what beliefs they are told of (Hell for example is something that probably shouldn't be taught until a child is at least 5 years of age), the strength to which these 'lessons' are enforced and the degree of absolution of which they are said to be (the more strongly you say that God is a FACT or that you must have faith in God, the more damaging it becomes). Luckily, all these factors have been steadily decreasing over time, as religious parents become more open minded, caring, and thoughtful of consequences.
As a possible counter example can we consider what Madalyn Murray O'Hair said to her son when he told her about his conversion as child abuse?
“One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times… he is beyond human forgiveness.”
I've done some digging and it turns out much of this sentiment comes from the musings of Richard Dawkins and his book The God Delusion. Specifically, Chapter 9, which is titled "Childhood, abuse and escape from religion." I found a digital copy of the book online. I'm not sure if linking to it violates any forum policies on copyrighted material, so I've copypasta'd some quotes that I felt were relevant to the conversation:
Yes but why should anyone listen to Richard Dawkins views on child rearing? Kinda arrogant to prescribe to other people how to raise there children. Does he think he should tell people to what school they should go to as well?
(Dawkins' reflection)
“'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.' The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds.“
This is such utter poppycock. For goodness sake he himself was raised as he calls it "a normal Anglican upbringing"
I would REALLY like to meet one person whose opinions and life-views haven't, in some shape or form, been influenced by the opinions and life-views of their parents.
It is undeniable that your parents influence you in a host of ways both positive and negative but to take two extreme examples if Madalyn Murray O'Hair can raise both a baptist minister and a the president and founder of THIS NGO then it safe to say children grow up to be there own people.
@bakgat.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair makes no attempt to justify or explain her argument, it's merely dismissive with superficial reasoning. You could easily say that not using physical punishment is "postnatal abortion on the part of a mother" in much the same way, it's not an argument that explains WHY just WHAT.
Why should we listen to Richard Dawkins? Because we can listen to his ARGUMENT, to his reasoning. We don't just take him on faith, that what be hypocritical of any Richard Dawkins supporter.
This is such utter poppycock. For goodness sake he himself was raised as he calls it "a normal Anglican upbringing"
Again, not an argument, just a superficial dismissal. I agree with Dawkins, in that the enforcement of beliefs can cause real damage. Unless you are arguing that psychological trauma isn't a valid criteria for abuse, Dawkins argument is actually rather hard to deny. And 'normal' doesn't mean good by any means, so that's irrelevant.
(Dawkins' colleague, Nicholas Humphrey)
“Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas - no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no God-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. “
What he proposes is merely the removal of a simple liberty. If I'm not entitled to impart my views on my children then why should I have them in the first place. You expect parents to spend 18 - 22 years of there life raising the children but yet you would not grant them the simple right of raising them as they choose. This is not enlightenment this is tyranny.
When Richard Dawkins impregnates my wife and he spends 18 years of his life raising the subsequent child then he can decide. If he gets a Masters in developmental psychology then maybe his views on child rearing may have some worth. If he is a psychologist or if he is a psychiatrist then also maybe I would have a listen. Even if he is a primary school educator then also maybe he could share his views then but seeing as he is none of these things he is simply running his mouth on matters that has no bearing on him.
I imagine that the average Oxford professor probably cannot imagine a subject that they are not experts in but really this is one of them.
There seems to be a rather common meme in atheist circles that raising children with religion could be construed as a form of child abuse because you are not allowing them to develop their own opinions on the nature of the universe and spiritual concepts and are imposing an ideology on them when they are too young to think independently of their parents. Now, even though I'm an atheist, I've always had a problem with this sentiment. Part of it is because there seems to be a bad habit of going to extremes when discussing this concept. The immediate example is threats of violence or excommunication from families. Most religious families, in my experience, have been quite mild-mannered and not prone to that sort of behavior. It just seems like a lot of this boils down to uncharitable opinions about religious families.
Here's where things get problematic for me. While I don't mind children being raised with religion, I do find infant circumcision (often a practice originating from religion) very troubling. I don't think religion should be tied to government because it has a track record of having poor results. Even more tame relationships between religion and government, such as prohibition, have had fairly disastrous results. I don't think creationism/intelligent design should be taught in schools, as it is sophistry with the deliberate attempt to undercut many of the scientific discoveries that inform our modern society. I think there should be separation of church and state, as, ideally, this arrangement benefits both parties.
Basically, I don't like authoritarian approaches to anything, including religion. I guess my problem is trying to figure out whether or not a child being taught religion by their families is authoritarian and possibly by extension, abusive. How do I reconcile these two perspectives on the subject?
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
We must also recognize that religion is not the type of opinion one can be indoctrinated in.
That's fair, but why?
I think the issue is whether it is possible to teach religion without being authoritarian.
I think the notion that it's abusive is funny, since most kids do the exact OPPOSITE of what their parents say anyway!
I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Would you mind expanding on that?
Because it's usually not medically necessary and has no real medical benefits with the risk of long-term physical and psychological damage. Barring medical emergencies, I don't really see why this practice needs to exist. It's a lot of risk for very little, if any, benefit. In worst cases, it's a cosmetic decision. In terms of consent, it's also an issue for me. At least you can leave religion if it no longer carries meaning for you. You can't really undo missing portions of your genitals.
That sounds right. I suppose it's possible, but I'm not sure what that would really look like. It would have to entail that parents raise their children with religion without the expectation that they carry that ideology to the grave.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Like, the issue is indoctrination, right? Child abuse because of indoctrination. But religious indoctrination isn't the only form of indoctrination.
Yeah, those are pretty valid reasons to find the process troubling.
Personally, I don't believe in interfering with circumcision because there is a religious reason behind it, and a successful circumcision has no inherent medical problems associated with it, but it mystifies me why anyone who isn't Jewish would elect to have the process for their children.
Also, what situation would result in circumcision being "medically necessary?"
I think you've described what that would look like.
Is religion necessary in order to do that?
I tend to be highly skeptical of studies done of subjects like this, as there is lots of wiggle room for confirmation bias. I'm pretty sure I could find a "credible" study stating the exact opposite.
Why is that, exactly?
Okay, but does that make other forms of indoctrination acceptable as well? If not, why would religion get special consideration?
There are certain conditions where the foreskin can actually cause damage to the rest of the *****. Paraphimosis is a good example: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/442883-overview (Link has illustrations, potentially NSFW. - Blinking Spirit) In this instance, the pulled back and inflamed foreskin can actually restrict blood flow to the rest of the *****, which obviously can have pretty terrible consequences. Circumcision is a common remedy for this condition, as it completely removes the problem tissue.
Did I, though? I mean, religion, like all ideas, needs to propagate in order to survive. If raise your children in religion and don't expect them to stay in it, doesn't that kind of defeat the point?
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
That's my point.
Oh huh. Never knew that.
I think the point is that whether or not they stay in it is their decision.
https://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse/
Damia http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=410191
DDFT Legacyhttp://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=505247
Domain Zoo http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=10212429#post10212429
Why? Because if it were so, it would be mean that the vast majority of humanity both past and present was subject to child abuse. It would render the term meaningless.
Child abuse would simply cease being something controversial.
What if you dubbed a slap across the face as brutal attacks? What if you started calling insults a crime against humanity.
All it serves to do is make you seem like someone not worth listening to. You become an exaggerator. You become someone that others don't take seriously.
The media, and social media both LOVE this kind of strained hyperbole. It arouses people's passions and generates clicks. But just because the media likes to characterize things in hyperbole and sound bytes doesn't mean that you should start thinking about things in terms of hyperbole and soundbytes.
Reframe the topic. You might say teaching religion to children is objectionable. You might say it is not a good policy.
But teaching religion to children is not child abuse, nor is it rape, murder, manslaughter, assault, a crime against humanity, etc.
All of those have their own definitions. Let those definitions stand, and if you find religion otherwise objectionable, articulate why without resorting to irrational characterizations which discredit you.
That's fair enough I suppose. I should reiterate that I'm not in the camp of atheists that thinks religious teaching is a form of child abuse. I appear to have some cognitive dissonance on the subject and I am attempting to resolve it through debate. Though, according to your definition, more hardline atheists would categorize it under "emotional abuse."
Okay, so let me understand. Your point is all indoctrination, including religious indoctrination, is, for lack of a better word, bad. I suppose my next question would be, wouldn't raising children with religion necessarily involve some element of indoctrination? Being realistic, how many religious parents are okay with their children leaving their faith if they dedicate time and effort into imprinting this idea of god and their religion into them?
Of course, but isn't the idea that they don't? Teaching religion to children is predicated on the idea of teaching moral and societal values to children based on the teachings of God, no?
I'm sorry if I'm not running at 100% effectiveness right now. Bonded with my parents and that usually involves liquor.
*Edit
Sure. I try not to take what social media says to heart. I've learned important lessons from the snowball effect that "social justice" has in these spaces and I extend that lesson to everything else.
I think there is a contingency of atheists who have had bad experience with religion and their families. I am not one of them. I don't find religion objectionable. I mostly just find it unnecessary. It's not compulsory to being a good person or living a good life.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
I don't think raising your child in your belief system is necessarily child abuse, but there are certainly ways it could be, depending on the belief system.
This is why this whole argument seems utterly ridiculous to me. No, I don't think they're against raising children in a religious life-view because it's stunting their way of seeing the world (if anything this kind of argumentation is just plain wrong- just on an anecdotal basis the majority of fierce atheists on this board alone are fierce atheists BECAUSE they were raised in a religious family and detested it), but rather because they just don't like religion and want to find any way of attacking it.
But, seriously, if you're raising your kid by telling them that God doesn't exist, you're doing everything that you're accusing Christians of doing.
Just because a practice is common doesn't mean it is not harmful.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
fine. but what's the point of getting it attached to a loaded term which is so evocative? People only have so much emotional capital to give.
Am I now supposed to think that I was abused? That the founding fathers were abused? That every person in america raised on religion was abused?
Are bible studies for children now institutions of abuse?
This is like the bible saying if you hate your brother you are a murderer. 1 John 3:15
Sure hating your brother is bad. But equating it to murder? Not even fundamentalist christians take that statement literally.
The fact of the matter is there are certainly examples in which religion can be child abuse. The question is the OP is asking is whether or not they all are. Moreover, the OP is stating that he himself thinks that the people who would argue as such are wrong, and I don't believe anyone in this thread has thusfar disagreed with him, so there's really no call for you getting so defensive.
I would not put limitations on what fundamentalist Christians can take literally.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You're right criminality is not a popularity contest.
Child abuse is a crime, the criminality of which can be determined by whether or not the elements of child abuse are met.
Teaching religion to children does not fall within the ambit of those elements, by any federal or state laws and their case law.
The question is effectively dispatched without anything more to say on the matter.
I reiterate my answer to the OP, reframe the question.
Do I think forcing a certain religion on a small person who has yet to decide what they choose to believe is child abuse? I can see the argument for both sides.
Instead expose the child to many different belief systems and let them decide on their own. Just because someone is raised a certain religion does not mean it will be right for them when they are older and able to research and decide on their own.
In my opinion, parenting is about exposing your children to as many possibilities as possible, so when they grow up they can make an informed decision on their own and become a functioning, contributing member of society. It shouldnt matter what religion they are any more then what political party they back or what race they choose to marry. All are personal choices that the parents should not force on their child.
But parents are human so parenting is a flawed process.
Id like to say first and foremost that if I sound defensive I appreciate you telling me. I have been told that sometimes when I write it sounds like attacking the other party. Most of my writing is adversarial, and I do that for a living. I honestly I don't always see it, but that's not really a good thing.
Secondly, I took the question directly. Raising children with religion is not child abuse. If one were to raise children with religion in a manner that constituted abuse, it would not be the act of raising children with religion that would be the crime, but the specific acts attached to it-- acts like sex abuse.
As for this
>Confused What other term would you like to give for child abuse? That's about as straightforward a phrasing as can be.
I have no contention with the term child abuse. My contention is called raising children with religion child abuse. Since this statement cannot be taken literally it's strained hyperbole that leads nowhere.
It's like me starting a topic, is rape treason?
On childhood trauma
“Even without physical abduction, isn't it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice persists to this day, almost entirely unquestioned. To question it is my main purpose in this chapter.”
(Anecdote from “an American woman”)
“At the age of seven, she told me, two unpleasant things had happened to her. She was sexually abused by her parish priest in his car. And, around the same time, a little schoolfriend of hers, who had tragically died, went to hell because she was a Protestant. Or so my correspondent had been led to believe by the then official doctrine of her parents' church. Her view as a mature adult was that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She wrote:
'Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yucky' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest - but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares. “
(Dawkins' reflection)
“'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.' The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds.“
On leaving
(A play Dawkins saw, called Letting Go of God)
“My first call from my mother was more of a scream. 'Atheist? ATHEIST?!?!' My dad called and said, 'You have betrayed your family, your school, your city.' It was like I had sold secrets to the Russians. They both said they weren't going to talk to me any more. My dad said, 'I don't even want you to come to my funeral.' After I hung up, I thought, 'Just try and stop me.'”
(A conversation with college professors)
“Two professors from one university in America wrote to me independently about their parents. One said that his mother suffers permanent grief because she fears for his immortal soul. The other one said that his father wishes he had never been born, so convinced is he that his son is going to spend eternity in hell. “
On Upbringing
(Dawkins' colleague, Nicholas Humphrey)
“Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas - no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no God-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. “
(Dawkins' reaction to Humphrey's quote regarding mummified Incan girl)
“Humphrey's point - and mine - is that, regardless of whether she was a willing victim or not, there is strong reason to suppose that she would not have been willing if she had been in full possession of the facts. For example, suppose she had known that the sun is really a ball of hydrogen, hotter than a million degrees Kelvin, converting itself into helium by nuclear fusion, and that it originally formed from a disc of gas out of which the rest of the solar system, including Earth, also condensed . . . Presumably, then, she would not have worshipped it as a god, and this would have altered her perspective on being sacrificed to propitiate it”
(On 1972 Supreme Court case involving an Amish family pulling their child from school on religious gorunds)
“The majority of the Supreme Court drew a parallel with some of the positive values of monastic orders, whose presence in our society arguably enriches it. But, as Humphrey points out, there is a crucial difference. Monks volunteer for the monastic life of their own free will. Amish children never volunteered to be Amish; they were born into it and they had no choice.”
(On arguments from cultural diversity)
“There is something breathtakingly condescending, as well as inhumane, about the sacrificing of anyone, especially children, on the altar of 'diversity' and the virtue of preserving a variety of religious traditions. The rest of us are happy with our cars and computers, our vaccines and antibiotics. But you quaint little people with your bonnets and breeches, your horse buggies, your archaic dialect and your earth-closet privies, you enrich our lives. Of course you must be allowed to trap your children with you in your seventeenth-century time warp, otherwise something irretrievable would be lost to us: a part of the wonderful diversity of human culture. A small part of me can see something in this. But the larger part is made to feel very queasy indeed.”
(Regarding a UK case and religion in school)
“What a charming picture! Shaquille and Clare went to lunch together, vigorously arguing their cases and defending their incompatible beliefs. But is it really so charming? Isn't it actually rather a deplorable picture that Mr McQuoid has painted? Upon what, after all, did Shaquille and Clare base their argument? What cogent evidence was each one able to bring to bear, in their vigorous and constructive debate? Clare and Shaquille each simply asserted that her or his holy book was superior, and that was that. That is apparently all they said, and that, indeed, is all you can say when you have been taught that truth comes from scripture rather than from evidence. Clare and Shaquille and their fellows were not being educated. They were being let down by their school, and their school principal was abusing, not their bodies, but their minds.”
What are everyone's thoughts on these quotes? I think he brings up some interesting points, though his anecdotes seem to fall into the same problem of citing the most extreme examples. Though he does make arguments for how more tame religious teaching and progressive concepts about cultural diversity also factor in. Though it does refer to ritual sacrifice, I did find the pondering of the mummified Incan child quite compelling. Would she have consented to ritual sacrifice if she possessed knowledge of the true nature of the sun that they worshiped? The argument seems to imply that children being raised with religion is a form of mental abuse because it's a deliberate torpor on the cognitive and intellectual development of the child.
UAzami, Locus of All KnowledgeU
BMarrow-Gnawer, Crime Lord of ComboB
WBRTariel, Hellraiser StaxWBR
Annul is really good in EDH
My opinion is simply that raising children can be child abuse, but isn't necessarily. It depends on what beliefs they are told of (Hell for example is something that probably shouldn't be taught until a child is at least 5 years of age), the strength to which these 'lessons' are enforced and the degree of absolution of which they are said to be (the more strongly you say that God is a FACT or that you must have faith in God, the more damaging it becomes). Luckily, all these factors have been steadily decreasing over time, as religious parents become more open minded, caring, and thoughtful of consequences.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Yes but why should anyone listen to Richard Dawkins views on child rearing? Kinda arrogant to prescribe to other people how to raise there children. Does he think he should tell people to what school they should go to as well?
This is such utter poppycock. For goodness sake he himself was raised as he calls it "a normal Anglican upbringing"
It is undeniable that your parents influence you in a host of ways both positive and negative but to take two extreme examples if Madalyn Murray O'Hair can raise both a baptist minister and a the president and founder of THIS NGO then it safe to say children grow up to be there own people.
Madalyn Murray O'Hair makes no attempt to justify or explain her argument, it's merely dismissive with superficial reasoning. You could easily say that not using physical punishment is "postnatal abortion on the part of a mother" in much the same way, it's not an argument that explains WHY just WHAT.
Why should we listen to Richard Dawkins? Because we can listen to his ARGUMENT, to his reasoning. We don't just take him on faith, that what be hypocritical of any Richard Dawkins supporter.
Again, not an argument, just a superficial dismissal. I agree with Dawkins, in that the enforcement of beliefs can cause real damage. Unless you are arguing that psychological trauma isn't a valid criteria for abuse, Dawkins argument is actually rather hard to deny. And 'normal' doesn't mean good by any means, so that's irrelevant.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
What he proposes is merely the removal of a simple liberty. If I'm not entitled to impart my views on my children then why should I have them in the first place. You expect parents to spend 18 - 22 years of there life raising the children but yet you would not grant them the simple right of raising them as they choose. This is not enlightenment this is tyranny.
When Richard Dawkins impregnates my wife and he spends 18 years of his life raising the subsequent child then he can decide. If he gets a Masters in developmental psychology then maybe his views on child rearing may have some worth. If he is a psychologist or if he is a psychiatrist then also maybe I would have a listen. Even if he is a primary school educator then also maybe he could share his views then but seeing as he is none of these things he is simply running his mouth on matters that has no bearing on him.
I imagine that the average Oxford professor probably cannot imagine a subject that they are not experts in but really this is one of them.