Fundamentalism and Children

The other point is that for these people to admit their upbringing was abusive means they are critisizing their own parents. Most people are justifiably reluctant to do that.

However, like you say, that doesn't make the issue go away.

I was raised Catholic... I have mixed feelings about it, but I don't feel "abused". My parents did the best I could, and what mother could stand the thought that her offspring might suffer eternally for not believing the right story. They had the belief that religion was necessary for morality and that "faith was good".

But I made a purposeful choice not to inflict it on my kid, and I don't regret it at all. I kept looking to see if there were some reason I had missed or if religious kids seemed to have an edge on morality, but I saw nothing that every made me regret my choice. And, my son is now 18, and damn fine moral "secular humanist" who thinks for himself and sounds so much more logical and likable than many of the adults on this forum from my perspective.

I think it's creepy to tell a smart and trusting kid that their eternity depends on them "believing" a certain story in the right way. Really creepy. Wrong. ETERNITY. It's impossible to make yourself believe something so incredible except by forcing yourself not to think.
 
I can't because I don't read minds
Then I'll give you the same answer to your question regarding your sexually abused friend. I can't because I don't read minds However, if you would like to elaborate on why the teachings you mentioned should be considered abusive even when the 'victim' does not, then I'll elaborate on why incest can be considered abusive even if the victim does not.
but I can tell you how it was abusive to my neighbour across the street. It decided who she would marry. It prevented her from going past highschool, in fact, it encouraged her to drop out, get married and have kids. It prevented her from leaving an abusive marriage. ETA: It was also the justification fo rthe abuse.
Telling about your friends and neighbors does a lot to explain why you feel the way you do, but it doesn't support your argument. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to justify the drastic measures you are advocating to remedy what many do not even percieve as a wrong to their children but a duty.

Why not take smaller, less intrusive steps such as preventing parents from deciding who their minor children will marry and stopping people from dropping out of school?
It decided what, as a girl, she was allowed to do and say.
This is not abuse. This is something that perserves the sanity of the adults raising the child. My children were never allowed to do and say anything they wanted. In fact, I would consider it criminally neglectful behavior if any parents did.

Perhaps, what bothers you are the choices her parents made regarding what she was allowed to say and do. That's quite reasonable, but please be more specific. But this statement is just, well, incredibly naive about children and parenting. I take you are not a parent? Or did you just mispeak yourself? I had very different ideas about what behaviors were reasonable and permitted than my parents did, but nonetheless, I did and do control what children are allowed to say and do by rewarding and punishing appropriately. So this complaint is not only NOT a symptom of abuse, it is one hallmark of responsible parenting. Given that a majority of people would consider also a religion education another hallmark of responsible parenting does not elevate my opinion of your judgement regarding what is and isn't abusive to children.

It took her years to undo the damage and she is still in therapy for it. She is 46.
So, you may have to establish whether it was child abuse but that has been established for me. It fits the definition.
I'm sorry your friend was abused, but you haven't done a good job of connecting the beliefs you objected to with the abuse your friend suffered.
You've established your friend was abused. You've established that she was taught the things you specified. What you haven't done is establish cause and effect. You've provided an instant of abuse in that situation. Slingblade provides another. This suggests a correlation. I and my three siblings provide examples that such a correlation, if it exists at all, isn't a strong one.
I do not question your right to not view your upbringing as abusive. I just object to your opinion that your view is the only one allowed by those who went through the same or worse. Your argument relies on the either or fallacy. It is groundless.
Others can and do view it differently. I have no quarrel with whether they were abused in such a setting or the claim that it can be part of an abusive atmosphere. But when you are suggesting it is so pervausively bad for people that societal intervention is needed, you need to marshal better evidence to support that position than a few anecdotes. I don't need to prove that it isn't abusive ever. You need to show that teaching such beliefs is either always or almost always so harmful to children that it is justified to call it abuse and seek to prevent it by law.
 
Last edited:
It can be. It was to me. But we are individual examples.

You provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing isn't necessarily harmful.

I provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing can be very harmful.

The truth lies in there somewhere. There are probably many truths. As many as there are individuals and upbringings.

I'm glad to say that I agree with you entirely here. :)
 
We shouldn't have to use special language to avoid hurting feelings on a skeptics forum... and it does get tiresome that every time any creationist abuse is mentioned the "you can't say religion IS child abuse" people derail the thread, ignore the OP and demonize those who bring religion's abuses to the table for discussion.
Okay, guilty, let me see if I can help get it back on track.

I do think the push to legitimize creation science is a valid concern right now. As I may have stated elsewhere on the board, it's what's bringing me out of the closet as an atheist, after decades of being content to let my private beliefs remain private.

I'll never forget one day, twenty years ago, when I got a ride from one of my co-workers to pick up my car at the shop. She was Vietnamese, and had formerly been one of the boat people. Maybe a church had sponsored her entry into the United States, I don't know. Her four-year-old son was in the car with us, looking at a children's book. I started looking at the book too, and saw that it told the story of Noah's Ark. What surprised me was one picture, with the water starting to rise, which depicted a concerned-looking Tyrannosaurus flailing about as the Ark floated out of reach.

I said, "You know, I don't think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." She shot me a severe look, and snapped, "Yes they did." I let the matter drop, not because I was afraid she'd put me out by the side of the road, but because I didn't believe in the story of Noah's Ark to begin with, and saw no point in having that conversation. Believing that myth didn't prevent her from writing computer programs that worked.

I do think it's important to push science, to emphasize the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, to teach critical thinking, and to make sure that religious dogma can only be taught as fact inside homes and religious institutions. I didn't stay in touch, so I don't know what her son is doing now, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he's productively employed in spite of his indoctrination.

Most people, even fundamentalists who believe in creationism, can still manage to think rationally outside the box of their religious beliefs. While it's true we probably won't see an atheist elected President any time soon (unless he or she is a stealth atheist, who waits until the second term to drop the pretense), I don't feel particularly persecuted in this society.

By all means, let's continue to discover and disseminate the truths that will debunk creationism. That's a worthwhile goal, and achievable. Trying to eliminate fundamentalism itself strikes me as foolish tilting at windmills.

P.S. The OP was concerned about a parody site, so ignoring those concerns is understandable. While the parody may touch on real matters of concern, we need to focus on the real matters rather than exaggeration for the sake of humor.
 
Last edited:
So? That doesn't make it good enough for me.

But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?

I thought that, as self-identified critical thinkers, those who criticize religion as vigorously as it is criticized here held themselves to a higher standard.

I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them.
 
But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?



I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them.

Yes... they just don't see that they are advocating a freedom of speech for themselves to criticize whom they please and have parents tell their kids whatever they want and allow creationists to lie in whatever manner they choose-- but don't want to allow those who disagree to do the same.

Surely they wouldn't be demonizing people for criticizing recognized cults indoctrinating kids, or people making their children into racists or homophobes or Muslim extremists... but when it comes to their special chosen faith (Christianity) it must never be criticized or scrutinized because the special people who believe in such things ought to be deferred to and anyone who suggests that all faiths have the potential for harm--or even the notion that "faith is good" can be harmful must be made into "religion haters" responsible for all that is bad. Threads are derailed to talk about these "aggressive atheists".

"Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee"-- the motto of the righteous. "Let me tell you how to live your lives more morally like me" they seem to be saying. But I don't see them as more moral. I don't know what the answer is, but I think all answers... even discussing things on a skeptics forum where people might think about things they hadn't thought about before--is better than continuing to pretend it's all fine and good if it has the word "god" attached.

People have been frightened into not questioning god and extending that "not questioning" to everything associated with god while telling themselves they are humble and saved for doing so (and telling themselves they are extra good and special by making bad guys out of those who don't defer as they've been cowed into doing.)
 
Last edited:
.

I said, "You know, I don't think humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time." She shot me a severe look, and snapped, "Yes they did." I let the matter drop, not because I was afraid she'd put me out by the side of the road, but because I didn't believe in the story of Noah's Ark to begin with, and saw no point in having that conversation. Believing that myth didn't prevent her from writing computer programs that worked.

P.S. The OP was concerned about a parody site, so ignoring those concerns is understandable. While the parody may touch on real matters of concern, we need to focus on the real matters rather than exaggeration for the sake of humor.

I see your point... and I agree. In the real world I am often in such situations where I don't know what, if anything, I should say. And it is important to consider the goal. I hope the kid grew up and got a good dose of religious mockery on the internet so that he could grow beyond Noah's Ark like he did beyond Santa. The truth is so much better than the fiction, and we need more people to understand it and take it further and share it with others-- not more people who think they are moral because they believe the right unbelievable story with angry jesus-defending passion.

And I realized latter that the OP was a parody... but Jesus camp wasn't... and the notion that those who criticize religion are labeling it child abuse is a twisting upon twisting of a derail of another thread. And the original accusation was hurled at Dawkins as though he's trying to outlaw religion... and all of it was about making the person criticizing religion look bad so that people wouldn't examine what it was that the person was actually criticizing.

I have strong feelings about those who try to protect faith from scrutiny and to automatically vilify those who criticize "religion" (in general... which they extrapolate to mean that you think ALL religion is ALWAYS bad and HARMFUL in their hyperbolic derails.) I think anyone who speaks out even just on this forum is doing more for critical think and humanity in general than those who rush to shut them up and assert themselves as authorities in the "right way" to curtail the "faith is good/non-belief is bad" meme.
 
However, if you would like to elaborate on why the teachings you mentioned should be considered abusive even when the 'victim' does not, then I'll elaborate on why incest can be considered abusive even if the victim does not.

Okay, now you are being realistic. It is abusive for someone in authority to lie to their charges. It is more abusive to hold those lies up as truth while you systematically tell them that the truth is a lie.

Now, you and others have claimed that children will eventually learn the truth and be none the worse for wear. You have also claimed that the people spreading the lies aren't really lying because they believe it is the truth.

These two statements contradict each other. If the adults teaching the lies can't tell they are lies, how do you expect children to?

The new morality according to Mead is that you can "F" a kids mind anyway you want and still hold yourself up in church, temple or synagogue as a good person. Fortunately, some people on skeptic's lists recognize the immorality of it.
 
But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?

I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them.

Thank you! :i:
 
The new morality according to Mead is that you can "F" a kids mind anyway you want and still hold yourself up in church, temple or synagogue as a good person. Fortunately, some people on skeptic's lists recognize the immorality of it.

Well, that's not exactly what I said, but it doesn't surprise me that you took it that way.
 
Well, that's not exactly what I said, but it doesn't surprise me that you took it that way.

The law protects their bodies. Their minds are fair game


For the life of me I have been unable to find another way to take this. It flat out says that the law has left their minds unprotected and because of this they are fair game for anything they would need protection from.

Let's go back to the first time you said this and examine something else: "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"

This has nothing to do with thought crimes, which is the realm of religions. We are not preventing anyone from thinking exactly what they want to think. We are preventing people from pushing their lies onto others in the name of religious freedom.

The unfortunate thing is that you are happy that children are not protected from the lies religions teach. The people who believe as you do would be up in arms if I told their children the truth though. Amazing!
 
The people who believe as you do would be up in arms if I told their children the truth though. Amazing!

Hi qayak,

Whilst I genuinely admire your intentions, I have a hunch it'll take more than words to break the woo cycle

Google: Results for children learn listen observe

Kids don't listen (much), instead they learn by observing and emulating those they respect and trust

Although we don't respect their parents, they have no choice (unless you're advocating some mass rehousing project - which sounds eerily like a scene from some B-grade NWO-style horror) and why should they have to make such a choice? Simply cos 'we know better'?

So... who/what else do they respect and trust?
Mass media? Maybe
Schools? Maybe

Woo is ugly. Social engineering ain't pretty either
 
For the life of me I have been unable to find another way to take this. It flat out says that the law has left their minds unprotected and because of this they are fair game for anything they would need protection from.

Yes, the law does not protect their minds. However, the law protects their bodies. When we say, "You have the right to raise your kids in any religion you wish." we are saying that you can't be prosecuted for your ideas, including those you tell your children. On the other hand, it says nothing about what you can do to them. Physically, the law can, and should, impose a lot of restrictions.

Some people think God demands that they beat their kids. Some think that God gives them the right to have sex with minors. To take drugs. To withhold medication. The law says none of those things and people can be prosecuted for any of them. On the other hand, the law says they cannot be prosecuted for the content of their speech toward children.

You said:
The new morality according to Mead is that you can "F" a kids mind anyway you want and still hold yourself up in church, temple or synagogue as a good person. Fortunately, some people on skeptic's lists recognize the immorality of it.

This would be true, if you held it to a strictly legal sense, but then it would be nothing new. The very old morality, from the beginning of America, is that you can't be prosecuted for anything at all that you say in a church, temple, or synagogue.

I like it that way. I don't want the government dictating what gets said in the home or in the synagogue. That would be an incredible amount of power, and I guarantee that if you grant the government that kind of power it would be abused, and sooner or later you would find that something you believed in would be declared a lie, and a crime, by the government wielding that power.


The unfortunate thing is that you are happy that children are not protected from the lies religions teach. The people who believe as you do would be up in arms if I told their children the truth though. Amazing!

One person who believes as I believe is me, and I am not up in arms at the thought that you might tell my child what you think is the truth. Indeed, I would take up arms against any government that tried to stop you.
 

Back
Top Bottom