Fundamentalism and Children

[Wildy]

I didn't really want to hijack a thread about a different topic so I thought this is a better time then any to create my first thread here. I apologise in advance if this has already been discussed.

The thread is question is this one.

Naughtyhippo pointed out a page from the Objective Ministries site.

This is their kids part. Take a look and you will see what these specific people want their kids to believe.

Looking at it you can see some rather scary ideals that these people want children to believe in. Complete devotion to God, intolerance towards non-Judeo Christians and Atheists, creation science and the idea that ideas like evolution are wrong.

Now we may find some of these things to be funny (the Atheist bit) but do we really want to see children being taught that Hindus are unsaved? Or that Atheists are mean people? Or that Kangaroos came from the Middle East like all animals?

Indoctrinating children in ideas like this (especially in the sciences) would set them up for greater trials and tribulations and greater falls when they are shown to be wrong, or be called ignorant if they persist with these ideas. Are the parents who let their kids go onto these sites unable to reconcile their faith with the facts that they want their children to continue fighting a losing battle against ideas that scare them?

And to be fair it isn't only the Christians that do this, remember the Muslim fanatics using a Mickey Mouse character to further their supposed Jihad against the infidels?

How are children supposed to make up their own minds about their faith if they are being force fed only one side of the argument from a young age?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

This is a very serious question. I think we could all agree on two things:

1. That parents have a responsibility to teach their kids some things. As an example I'll use basic math. If you refuse for your children to learn how to add and subtract, I would say that is abuse and should be a crime.

2. That parents should have the right to raise their children in a religion of their choosing.

I guess the real question is where do these 2 ideas collide? I think we could all agree that if a religion says numbers are evil and that children should not be taught basic math, we as a society would not tolerate this and force them to teach them math. But what about evolution? How about basic computer use? History? What is the minimum a child must be taught?

Hard questions.

LLH

 

[tsg]

I guess the real question is where do these 2 ideas collide?

I would suggest where the religion teaches things that are demonstrably false.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

WARNING: Objective Ministires is an elaborate parody.

 

[Wildy]

I hope the forum software doesn't mind what I am doing here, or I will probably annoy a whole bunch of people...

1. That parents have a responsibility to teach their kids some things. As an example I'll use basic math. If you refuse for your children to learn how to add and subtract, I would say that is abuse and should be a crime.

You mean similar to what some people said about the Prussian Blue girls, that what their parents had taught them could be considered a form of child abuse?

2. That parents should have the right to raise their children in a religion of their choosing.

Agreed.

I think we could all agree that if a religion says numbers are evil and that children should not be taught basic math, we as a society would not tolerate this and force them to teach them math. But what about evolution? How about basic computer use? History? What is the minimum a child must be taught?

There is one problem with this statement though. In our society a basic knowledge of maths is important, you probably couldn't survive without it. Computer use is another important thing for children to learn especially as our society moves towards being more computer based.

History helps to answer questions involving older buildings, monuments etc. but it's relevance also depends on the location and what is being taught. For me the semester of Modern History in Year 11 two years ago was rather pointless because it was US oriented. I would have preferred learning more about pre-Federation Australia because it would be more relevant to me, and the history of Australia around Federation has been rammed down my throat for too many years.

Anyway I partly digress.

Finally we come to evolution. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that evolution is not really that important for someone who isn't going to learn a science with any biological aspect to it. But in the current climate in the US, and the small spillover that hit Australia (stupid Ken Ham...) it is starting to not be the case. What we see on various Internet fora is that the people who don't know evolution but think they do after hearing about it's supposed "evils" from a pastor start to argue against it without any clue of what evolution actually says.

What we see is that evolution has reached a point where it has to be taught to balance a view that isn't scientific in any way.

I guess the real question is where do these 2 ideas collide?

I would suggest where the religion teaches things that are demonstrably false.

Agreed. But how do you convince someone that biblical literalism (sola scriptura?) is not the right way to go? The Christian denominations that don't follow literalism seem to be more accepting of evolution then those that do.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This is a very serious question. I think we could all agree on two things:

1. That parents have a responsibility to teach their kids some things. As an example I'll use basic math. If you refuse for your children to learn how to add and subtract, I would say that is abuse and should be a crime.

No, I don't think you can get agreement thanks to your last clause. When will you people stop it with this "something I disagree with is child abuse" crap? (LOLH, you are not the only person who has ever done this intellectually dishonest thing, so please accept that my frustration isn't solely directed at you. Your post in general raises good points.)

Is this the Skeptic's Godwinian default into irrationality? "Whatever I deem incorrect child rearing is by definition child abuse?" I sincerely hope not, though this usage crops up on this forum again and again.

It isn't child abuse to undereducate your children, else we'd have jails bursting to overcapacity, due to child abusers being jailed, all over the country, and all over the world, thanks to parents who are not very good as teachers of many things, or who neglect various educational imperatives.

Let us next jail all Mexican immigrants, as child abusers, who choose not to teach their kids English. Let us jail all parents who fail to, and choose not to, teach their kids the birds and the bees bit.

Then . . . never mind.

Back to "won't teach my kids to add and subtract" concept.

Suboptimal parenting? Yes.

Abusive?

No.

Is it easily fixable?

Yes. (Math class. Tutoring. )

Is real child abuse easily fixable?

No, the emotional and physical harm in some cases can't be fixed, only mitigated.

By the way, there are schools, and school attendance is generally required, see truancy laws, so your example isn't a good one. I am sure you can use, or come up with, a better one, to illustrate your disagreement with how one sect views child indoctrination.

DR

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

No, I don't think you can get agreement thanks to your last clause. When will you people stop it with this "something I disagree with is child abuse" crap? (LOLH, you are not the only person who has ever done this intellectually dishonest thing, so please accept that my frustration isn't solely directed at you. Your post in general raises good points.)

No offense taken. I seriously thought everyone would agree with that statement. Do you believe there are SHOULD be any minimum standards of education for children? How about reading/writing? Or even the ability to speak? The tying of shoes? How to dress yourself? How to use the bathroom? Anything?

LLH

 

[qayak]

This is a very serious question. I think we could all agree on two things:

2. That parents should have the right to raise their children in a religion of their choosing.

No such right exists, nor should it.

 

[pgwenthold]

No such right exists, nor should it.

Interestingly, the same people who would claim they have the "right to raise their children in religion of their chosing" are the same ones who will argue that the state has a right to prevent gay marriage because gay parents are less optimal than having a mother and a father.

IOW, on one hand, the state has the right to interfere because "it is good for society," while in the other, the state can't interfere regardless of whether it is good for society or not (which a well-educated populace would be).

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

No such right exists, nor should it.

Wow, I couldn't get everyone to agree either statement. I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

LLH

 

[Darth Rotor]

No offense taken. I seriously thought everyone would agree with that statement. Do you believe there are SHOULD be any minimum standards of education for children? How about reading/writing? Or even the ability to speak? The tying of shoes? How to dress yourself? How to use the bathroom? Anything?

LLH

I don't disagree that there is a massive list of things you ought to teach your children.

Not doing so being called "child abuse" is what I objected to. Your idea that we parents ought to teach our children well is agreed.

Parent of two.

DR

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I don't disagree that there is a massive list of things you ought to teach your children.

Not doing so being called "child abuse" is what I objected to. Your idea that we parents ought to teach our children well is agreed.

Thank you for clarifying. So do you think there is anything a parent should be required, by law, to teach a child? (all this assumes of course that the child is capable of learning, and not seriusoly handicapped).

LLH

 

[Meadmaker]

I think parents should have the right to raise their kids in any religion, and in the United States, they do have that right.

What they don't have is the ability to do so. This forum is filled with people brought up in a religion who subsequently stopped either believing or practicing that religion. (Myself included.) Teach your kids whatever they want, but in the end they will decide.

As for certain teachings being literally criminal, we have compulsory education in this country, and that is a good thing. Most states allow you to homeschool, and all states allow private schools, but if you choose some form of non state-sponsored education, you have to be able to demonstrate that your chosen form of education meets minimum standards. In that sense, it is criminal not to teach your kids certain things. Again, that's a good law.

Beyond that, though, this talk of religious education as child abuse scares me. I would not want to live in a world where that view became mainstream.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thank you for clarifying. So do you think there is anything a parent should be required, by law, to teach a child? (all this assumes of course that the child is capable of learning, and not seriusoly handicapped).


LLH

Keep the government out of my house, thanks.

Useless law. Not a good proposal. Every time you make a law, or set of laws, you have to enforce them. Most people don't need a law to tell them to "teach their children" so the law is grossly unnecessary.

Schools are an available public function that handles a great deal of basic teaching of some things, and there is a plethora of public information available, and lots of for a fee info, for any parent with even a modest motive at all for raising kids. Those who fall into the exception are already covered in laws that result in neglected children being taken from them.

Your suggestion for such a set of laws "of what must be taught by parents" is advocacy for redundancy.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

I

Beyond that, though, this talk of religious education as child abuse scares me. I would not want to live in a world where that view became mainstream.

If you kill off all skeptics, that world will never happen.

Final Solution for fifty, Adolf.

(For the anally puckered, that was a bit of a joke.)

That course of action is obviously extreme, so hopefully a dialogue will remain open to demonstrate the unsuitability of that concept.

DR

 

[qayak]

Wow, I couldn't get everyone to agree either statement. I guess I shouldn't be suprised.

LLH

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.

3- it is your right to assault your children.

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.

I think this should be expanded to offer real freedom of religion by insisting children wait until they are old enough to make up their own minds.

 

[qayak]

So do you think there is anything a parent should be required, by law, to teach a child?

Parents are already required by law to send their children to school which is a start. It is time for this to be improved upon though.

 

[Beth]

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.

3- it is your right to assault your children.

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.

I think this should be expanded to offer real freedom of religion by insisting children wait until they are old enough to make up their own minds.

1 - No. But it is your right to decide who minor daughter is allowed to see, when and where. You can, for example, insist on chaparoning your daughter on all her dates and never allowing her to be alone with a male. It's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

2 - No. If the medical condition is one where there is known treatment that has a high probability of success, parental refusal to consent can result in their losing custody. But parents can refuse generally accepted health care such as vaccinations if they choose. This is a really dicey area in our society right now, deciding when a course of treatment is necessary enough to justify taking custody away from parents. Again, it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

3 - No, but it is your right to discipline your children and spanking them is a permissible punishment. This, too, is a dicey area in our society right now, deciding what is 'abusive' and what it not. Again, it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two examples.

So, where should we draw the line on a fundamentalist education? What we actually do at this point seems pretty reasonable to me in regards to parental responsibility. Refusal to provide a basic education is considered neglectful to the point of justifying taking custody away from the parents. But teaching them that evolution is a theory and that it's wrong does not justify such an action. Again, I think's it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

Like Meadmaker, I would hate to live in a society where parents were not permitted to pass on their religious beliefs to their children. I hope it never happens here.

 

[Meadmaker]

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.

I'm unaware of any such court ruling. I am aware that certain practices are forbidden, regardless of religion.

For example, in the United States, it is a crime to have sex with someone twelve years of age. You cannot use religious beliefs to avoid prosecution if you break the law about underage sex.

In other words, the law protects their bodies. Their minds are fair game. While that can be unfortunate, the alternative is to define thought crimes, which would be worse, in my humble opinion.

 

[qayak]

I'm unaware of any such court ruling. I am aware that certain practices are forbidden, regardless of religion.

Courts have removed children from parents who would not allow medical treatment so those parents were not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wanted.

There are court cases pending on the marriage of young girls to old men. Of course, this won't stop it from happening to those girls but it will hopefully prevent the practice in the future which will mena more parents can't raise their children in the religion they wish.

I think it is high time the courts and governments looked at all the other abuses religions and religious parents push on their children.