Is it child abuse to raise your child to believe in your religion?

[Correa Neto]

Yeah, there could be more options.

Aniway, I'm against. Regardless if we like it or not, religion is an integral part of a culture. I can't really feel confortable on the active role of suppressor or cultural reformer. Looks too much like totalitarian regimes for me.

Religion can be used to incentive violence? Sure it can. But secular ideologies can also. Ask Pol Pot...

 

[Miss Anthrope]

So you would favor forcing every child to have some sort of state mandated curriculum? Sure evolution is a major issue, but there are plenty of others in many areas that can also prove damaging.

In my state we have laws that lists the required subjects to be taught and kids must either be tested with an approved test each year, or evaluated by a licensed teacher. (Parents also have access to the school curriculum in their area and can teach from it, free of charge) I'm perfectly happy with that, and it covers the other areas of concern. I have met one family where the 10 and 13 year olds could not read beyond a first grade level. That was absolutely abusive, and someone in the social group we belonged to reported this violation of the state law to the authorities.

I don't wish to derail---in summary my main point is that refusing to teach something ala evolution or sex ed for religious reasons can harm a child in a very serious way. When religion is taken to this level, or even more extreme levels, it is not a good thing.

 

[skeptifem]

At JREF? shocking!

Yes, raising your child with beliefs you believe to be correct/best is certainly abusive.

it can be. You cant honestly think that what parents believe is 'best' for their kids is always best. some parents are awful to their kids.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In my state we have laws that lists the required subjects to be taught and kids must either be tested with an approved test each year, or evaluated by a licensed teacher. (Parents also have access to the school curriculum in their area and can teach from it, free of charge) I'm perfectly happy with that, and it covers the other areas of concern. I have met one family where the 10 and 13 year olds could not read beyond a first grade level. That was absolutely abusive, and someone in the social group we belonged to reported this violation of the state law to the authorities.

That depends. I am not sure what level I was reading at, at 10 but it was well below grade level, not sure if it would have above first grade level or not. So how does learning disabilities interact with home schooling?

I don't wish to derail---in summary my main point is that refusing to teach something ala evolution or sex ed for religious reasons can harm a child in a very serious way. When religion is taken to this level, or even more extreme levels, it is not a good thing.

But we are already federally funding such harm with abstinence only education, so why stop there?

 

[Beleth]

I am very wary of the idea of legislating against such indoctrination. It's all happy time deciding what people can and can't teach their children... so long as you're the one making the decisions.

QFT.

To the general audience here:
Put the shoe on the other foot -- if a law were passed labeling the teaching of science (especially evolution) as child abuse, what would you do? Now, do you think that religious folks would do the same if the teaching of religion got labeled as child abuse?

 

[drkitten]

QF
Put the shoe on the other foot -- if a law were passed labeling the teaching of science (especially evolution) as child abuse, what would you do?

Ask for evidence, and when none was forthcoming, petition for change.

Individual states generally do have laws -- or more accurately, state curriculum requirements -- restricting what can be taught in science class, and although violating them is not generally treated as "child abuse," violating the state standards can be grounds for all sorts of legal nastiness, including fines for the relevant district and disciplining, or in extreme cases de-licensing, the individual teacher.

Now, do you think that religious folks would do the same if the teaching of religion got labeled as child abuse?

No. They wouldn't ask for evidence,.... and they'd petition for change irrespective of what evidence was actually provided.

There's plenty of evidence that some forms of religious belief are linked to child abuse.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

How do you determine what is middle of the road? Is it one that says only homosexual acts are sinful, not that any homosexual inclination marks you as the devils spawn?

My, you are in a picky mood today!

I was raised in a family where organized religion was not the most important thing. I was taught that treating each other with respect and kindness was more important than general churchiness. We went to church occasionally. My parents identified themselves as Methodists, but we usually went to the non-denominational Air Force base chapel. I was taught to not hate, steal, or lie. I was taught that we should truly love our neighbor, and treat others how we would want to be treated. We never pointed to any person or group and gleefully or self-righteously announced, "They're going to hell!!"

As for the homosexual thing, I didn't even know it existed until I was in my teens. I was raised in Air Force communities in the 1970s. It was not talked about like it is today.

I would have to say that middle-of-the-road equals non-fundie, non-exclusive, non-hatemongering. Mind you, this is from my own experience, which is all I can truly speak from. Having learned about how many other religions are practiced and the messages they preach, I stand by my "middle-of-the-road" designation.

 

[Irony]

I voted Planet X due to the lack of a choice that reflected my opinion.

It is not child abuse to tell your child "This is what I believe and this is why I believe it". It is child abuse to tell your child "This is what you will believe, otherwise you will be abandoned by your family and tortured for all of eternity".

 

[Beleth]

Ask for evidence, and when none was forthcoming, petition for change.

And when the petition was denied?

 

[drkitten]

And when the petition was denied?

"Assumes facts not yet in evidence."

If you're asking what I would do if my local hometown decided to establish a official theocracy, and the courts declined to intervene,.... well, moving is certainly one option. If you're suggesting that the entire world is bathed in theocracy like The Handmaid's Tale, my options are more limited, but I don't see any reason to take that suggestion seriously.

 

[Darth Rotor]

And when the petition was denied?

Rule .303.

DR

(REf = movie = Breaker Morant.)

 

[Civilized Worm]

Like Dawkins I consider it abusive but would object to legislation against it. Compare it to people who teach their children racist beliefs, it's not nice but get the law involved be worse.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My, you are in a picky mood today!

I was raised in a family where organized religion was not the most important thing. I was taught that treating each other with respect and kindness was more important than general churchiness. We went to church occasionally. My parents identified themselves as Methodists, but we usually went to the non-denominational Air Force base chapel. I was taught to not hate, steal, or lie. I was taught that we should truly love our neighbor, and treat others how we would want to be treated. We never pointed to any person or group and gleefully or self-righteously announced, "They're going to hell!!"

As for the homosexual thing, I didn't even know it existed until I was in my teens. I was raised in Air Force communities in the 1970s. It was not talked about like it is today.

I would have to say that middle-of-the-road equals non-fundie, non-exclusive, non-hatemongering. Mind you, this is from my own experience, which is all I can truly speak from. Having learned about how many other religions are practiced and the messages they preach, I stand by my "middle-of-the-road" designation.

The thing is that churches that seem middle of the road can get very weird when homosexuality of other issue comes up. Look at the catholic church and its sexual issues, or how does that not fit into your classification of middle of the road?

I am also reminded of the recent flap over gay methodist bishop.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

The thing is that churches that seem middle of the road can get very weird when homosexuality of other issue comes up. Look at the catholic church and its sexual issues, or how does that not fit into your classification of middle of the road?

I am also reminded of the recent flap over gay methodist bishop.

I agree. Churches can get real hung-up on just about any issue. There are always going to be ministers or members who preach intolerance, hate, and bigotry in any religion. From what I know about what some churches teach now, that my own religious training was pretty mild. I have never thought of the Catholic Church as "middle-of-the-road".

As I feel yet another challenge to my "middle of the road" religious designation coming up, I will tell you again what I mean by it.

1) tolerant of ALL people
2) forgiving
3) following the Golden Rule

Of course, having re-examined my thoughts, it occurs to me that this is how I am raising my own child. The big exception is that there's no religious training involved. I think that it is wrong (and borderline abusive) to teach a child hate, intolerance, and deception whether religion is involved or not; however, I don't see how this could be legislated in the real world.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. Churches can get real hung-up on just about any issue. There are always going to be ministers or members who preach intolerance, hate, and bigotry in any religion. From what I know about what some churches teach now, that my own religious training was pretty mild. I have never thought of the Catholic Church as "middle-of-the-road".

As I feel yet another challenge to my "middle of the road" religious designation coming up, I will tell you again what I mean by it.

1) tolerant of ALL people
2) forgiving
3) following the Golden Rule

Of course, having re-examined my thoughts, it occurs to me that this is how I am raising my own child. The big exception is that there's no religious training involved. I think that it is wrong (and borderline abusive) to teach a child hate, intolerance, and deception whether religion is involved or not; however, I don't see how this could be legislated in the real world.

My point was that groups that are far from the fundamentalists in issues of doctrine and such. How is the catholic church fundamentalist, exclusivity or hate mongering? Those where the way you where claiming to recognize middle of the road churches, by their lack of such things.

Now many members of any church are not going to be fitting into the general fitting of the church. There was an interesting report on all things considered last night about fundamentalists who have a real environmental agenda.

I am not saying that all religion is bad, but that it is hard to find a religion to label middle of the road because the ones that people would generally think of as such can have some strong reactions when they can't ignore certain issues any longer.

 

[ClintonHammond]

All religion causes brain damage

Your children would be better off if you gave them coccaine, cigarettes and Wild Turkey!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think teaching religion is a mild form of child abuse, just like teaching them Santa Claus exists without soon saying "just kidding!"

But can you imagine what the world would be like if we legislated against it?

~~ Paul

 

[UserGoogol]

At JREF? shocking!

Yes, raising your child with beliefs you believe to be correct/best is certainly abusive.

Course that means atheists who raise their child to believe there is no God are also being "abusive" - or is this another one of those selective logic things -

Whether you're brainwashing your children to believe "God exists," "God doesn't exist" or "Murder is wrong," you are still brainwashing them.

That said, I have no idea how bad brainwashing really is, whether the societal benefits of brainwashing against murder being bad outweigh things, whether allowing parents to brainwash their children is necessary for a diverse society, or whether the cure would be worse than the disease, so I can't answer the poll. But it is brainwashing, if nothing else.

 

[skeptifem]

Whether you're brainwashing your children to believe "God exists," "God doesn't exist" or "Murder is wrong," you are still brainwashing them.

That said, I have no idea how bad brainwashing really is, whether the societal benefits of brainwashing against murder being bad outweigh things, whether allowing parents to brainwash their children is necessary for a diverse society, or whether the cure would be worse than the disease, so I can't answer the poll. But it is brainwashing, if nothing else.

i think most people can figure out that murder is wrong. I understand your point but i think thats a bad example to use.

 

[jsiv]

As much as I'd like to see religion disappear, the absolute last thing I want to do is give the government (any government) the power to tell anyone what they can and can't believe.

Speaking of government legislation. Seeing as today is Norway's Constitution Day, I'm posting a few articles from it that are related to religion.

Article 2 and 4 are the most interesting ones (loosely) related to this topic. If you are a member of the evangelical-lutheran State Church of Norway, you are constitutionally required to raise your children into the same faith. What the punishment for failing to do so would be, I have no idea.

The king (or queen) is also required to subscribe to this particular belief, whether he likes it or not. Now, with the throne being inherited this may not be a huge issue since religion does tend to "run in the family," but it's still something to think about.

Article 12 is another interesting one that has the potential to create a scenario where a person that would otherwise be a good choice for the Council is refused the opportunity purely based on his religious beliefs (or lack thereof.) In a sense it amounts to constitutionally mandated discrimination.

§ 2.
All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion.

The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State. The inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same.

§ 4.
The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same.

§ 12.
[...] More than half the number of the Members of the Council of State shall profess the official religion of the State. [...]

§ 16.
The King ordains all public church services and public worship and all meetings and assemblies dealing with religious matters, and ensures that public teachers of religion follow the norms prescribed for them.

§ 27.
[...] A Member of the Council of State who does not profess the official religion of the State shall not take part in proceedings on matters which concern the State Church.

("The King" in §16 actually means "The King in Council of State," which is a fancy way of saying The Government.)


Anyway, Happy Constitution Day!