Fundamentalism and Children

[Beth]

Then are you claiming that the catholic church does not harm many people(leaving asside church sex abuse scandals for now).

If it is main stream it should be harmless right?

No, my claim is that whatever harm may be done by raising a child in the catholic church, it is not suffucient to justify calling it abusive. If may or may not qualify as harmful depending on the definition of 'harm' used, but in general, whatever harm may be done it is not so detrimental that it is reasonable to seek to prevent parents from doing so.

 

[Slimething]

No, my claim is that the harm done ... is not suffuciently harmful .. If may or may not be harmful depending on the definition of 'harm' used, but it is not so harmful ...

Alrighty then!

 

[kellyb]

I will agree that some fundamentalist churches would meet this definition of a cult, but such churches are not representative of mainstream religion.

I hate making a claim that I can't prove, but it is my impression that most of mainstream protestant Christianity (and by that, I mean the regular church attenders) meets most of that definition.
Much more so within youth groups than in the adult services and activities, though.

 

[Beth]

I hate making a claim that I can't prove, but it is my impression that most of mainstream protestant Christianity (and by that, I mean the regular church attenders) meets most of that definition.
Much more so within youth groups than in the adult services and activities, though.

I don't agree. Why do you feel that way?

 

[kellyb]

I don't agree. Why do you feel that way?

Let's go through the traits:

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing

That should be pretty obvious. "On fire for Christ" etc.

and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders,

And within the church, people who ask "bad questions" get "prayed for" eventually for having a 'rebellious spirit' or whatever (at least for kids in youth groups that's pretty common).

to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.

That's a little too vague to comment on.

Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family,

Christian kids aren't supposed to hang with unsaved kids, they're supposed to see unsaved parents and family as blinded by Satan...

debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience,

The emotional, hypnotic effect of worship services...

powerful group pressures,

You accept the theology or are ostracised...more "we'll pray for you" stuff...

information management,

No secular books, music, TV, "liberal news sources", etc.

suspension of individuality or critical judgment,

That one should be obvious, too...

promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.

If you leave the church, it's because you're being led by Satan, etc. Hellbound.

This is not the experience only in obscure little fundamentalist Westboro places...this is what goes on in the mega-churches! I admit I live in the bible belt, so I saw the worst of the worst for a national average, I guess...but this is what went on at all three of the mega-churches here in my little corner of the South. Most of the Evangelical/Baptist churches use the same kinds of youth programs. They tend to be little clones of each other. They're all brainwashy in the same ways.

 

[qayak]

These links are about brainwashing techniques used by, among others, religious cults. They even define religious cults so as not to confuse them with normal accepted religions. Thus, these links are not evidence of harm to children caused by a religious upbringing. Would you like to try again?

You can forget about the definition of cult. it is the brainwashing techniques I am pointing to. As is reported in other papers linked to these, almost any mainstream religion fits the definition of a cult. Many experts however, look at the structure and dynamics of the group although many others feels this still means mainstream religions meet the definition.

But, I don't care. it is the brainwashing I am interested in.

My opponents in the debate have said that the adults/parents teaching the kids are not lying because they really believe what they are teraching and yet they also say that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.

This is completely contradictory to me and it hasn't been addressed by those opponsnts as of yet. Not that I am surprised.

The second part of my complaint has to do with how easy it is to suggest things to children. Studies have been done where a group of kids who have never been to Disneyland are asked if they have ever been there. They all say no. They are told, "Well, that's too bad because if you had been to Disneyland you would have seen . . . " they are then told all about what they would have seen and done there. Shortly after this they are once again asked if they have ever been to Disneyland, and a large percentage say they have and go on to tell all about it.

It is very easy to get children to believe false things and almost impossible for them to discard those falsehoods easily. Something as simple as being told about Disneyland once will have a great effect, what will being told the lies of religions, repeatedly, for years do?

The point being, why hamper a child's development by creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that they will spend a lot of time, sometimes a lifetime, trying to overcome?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's go through the traits:



That should be pretty obvious. "On fire for Christ" etc.



And within the church, people who ask "bad questions" get "prayed for" eventually for having a 'rebellious spirit' or whatever (at least for kids in youth groups that's pretty common).



That's a little too vague to comment on.



Christian kids aren't supposed to hang with unsaved kids, they're supposed to see unsaved parents and family as blinded by Satan...



The emotional, hypnotic effect of worship services...




You accept the theology or are ostracised...more "we'll pray for you" stuff...



No secular books, music, TV, "liberal news sources", etc.


That one should be obvious, too...



If you leave the church, it's because you're being led by Satan, etc. Hellbound.

This is not the experience only in obscure little fundamentalist Westboro places...this is what goes on in the mega-churches! I admit I live in the bible belt, so I saw the worst of the worst for a national average, I guess...but this is what went on at all three of the mega-churches here in my little corner of the South. Most of the Evangelical/Baptist churches use the same kinds of youth programs. They tend to be little clones of each other. They're all brainwashy in the same ways.

This is certainly present, look at the movies Hell House for example(they seem to have jewish witches as they use a star of david instead of a pentagram for their witches)

But how mainstream this is, well it is hard to say. Here in NY you don't really see this, but in the nation on average it is hard to say.

 

[Meadmaker]

My opponents in the debate have said that the adults/parents teaching the kids are not lying because they really believe what they are teraching and yet they also say that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.

This is completely contradictory to me and it hasn't been addressed by those opponsnts as of yet. Not that I am surprised.

To the extent that this has been said by anyone, I suppose it most resembles something said by me, so I might as well address it.

The first part, whether or not the adults are lying, is just a definition.

So, what about the second part? Are kids "perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction"? Well, adults aren't, so why should kids be? Of course kids are not perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction. Of course kids will be influenced by family, by teachers, and by friends. A child is much more likely to adopt religion if he is taught it by his parents than if not. Although a few people who grew up atheists decide to become Christians as adults, it's much rarer. In fact, the ones I've known personally all involved some sort of love affair. Love makes people do weird things.*

My point was not that kids aren't influenced by adults, or that they weren't likely to believe what they are told from trusted sources. My point was that, regardless of that, it is still the kid's choice. When that child turns into an adult, that child has a choice about whether or not to remain Christian, or whatever.

How will he make that choice? I think he will make that choice based on his experience. Does his religion seem true to him? Does it seem to be having a positive influence on him? If so, he'll remain a Christian or Jew or Muslim or Hindu. If not, and he lives in a place where it is not a crime, he'll switch religions or become atheist.

*ETA: I didn't realize it when I wrote it, but this includes me. You never would have caught me in a synagogue prior to marriage.

The point being, why hamper a child's development by creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that they will spend a lot of time, sometimes a lifetime, trying to overcome?

An awful lot of them don't spend a lifetime trying to overcome it, and they seem none the worse for wear.

There has been a lot of discussion here about "cults" vs. "mainstream". I agree that there is no hard and fast line you can draw that separates them, but a distinction that is frequently useful is a fairly simple one. How does it affect their life outside the church/cult? I work with Methodists. I've dated Christians. I married a Jew. They all seem perfectly capable of functioning well in the real world. Branch Davidians shot at federal agents, let some strange guy screw their daughters, and shot their children in the back of the head when the feds came in.

To my way of thinking, that makes the Branch Davidians a bit stranger than the Methodists, regardless of any similarities in doctrine.

 

[Beth]

Let's go through the traits:

Okay

That should be pretty obvious. "On fire for Christ" etc.

I'll agree with this one.

And within the church, people who ask "bad questions" get "prayed for" eventually for having a 'rebellious spirit' or whatever (at least for kids in youth groups that's pretty common).

I don't see this as "employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion" . It seems pretty direct to me and open to me rather than deceptive and indirect.

That's a little too vague to comment on.

That's a shame. I see it as the crucial charactoristic, particularly for the discussion here. If it's not harmful, it's certainly not abusive.

Christian kids aren't supposed to hang with unsaved kids, they're supposed to see unsaved parents and family as blinded by Satan...

I don't think most mainstream churches are so restrictive that they forbid their youth from associating with jews, muslims, or methodists. The more restrictive and controlling churches may recommend it, I don't know, but they don't actually isolate their kids from those who are unsaved. Cults do.

The emotional, hypnotic effect of worship services...

???? I've been to worship services at a variety of churches over my life. Emotional, occasionally. Hypnotic, never. I don't think this is charactoristic of mainstream churches. Going back, I see the definition says: "debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" I don't think typical worship services can be called 'debilitating' though some do harp a lot on the 'subservience to god' bit.

You accept the theology or are ostracised...more "we'll pray for you" stuff...

Dogmatic churches are this way, but not all churches are dogmatic. I know of a number of churchs that are self described as 'radically inclusive'. They welcome gay couples, etc. They don't ostracise those who disagree, but welcome them and the opportunity to win them over.

No secular books, music, TV, "liberal news sources", etc.

This is pretty much limited to some fundamentalist churches, which I have already agreed could be considered cults. This isn't a charactoristic of mainstream churches.

That one should be obvious, too...

No. Same as above. This one only applies to certain fundamentalist churches. A great many churches want their members, including their children, to question what they believe in and why. They aren't afraid of it and they encourage it. That even includes some conservative denominations in addition to the liberal ones.

If you leave the church, it's because you're being led by Satan, etc. Hellbound.

This depends on the church. Not a universal by any means, though I think it's a relative common trait.

This is not the experience only in obscure little fundamentalist Westboro places...this is what goes on in the mega-churches! I admit I live in the bible belt, so I saw the worst of the worst for a national average, I guess...but this is what went on at all three of the mega-churches here in my little corner of the South. Most of the Evangelical/Baptist churches use the same kinds of youth programs. They tend to be little clones of each other. They're all brainwashy in the same ways.

I just can't agree that this qualifies as brainwashing. Yes, there are some charactoristics in common with the definition, but that's also true of such things as goth culture, fan clubs for rock stars, etc. Churches, with some exceptions, don't fit the definition of cult well enough to convince me that such an experience is harmful to children.

 

[Beth]

But, I don't care. it is the brainwashing I am interested in.

I don't see how the description of brainwashing techniques apply to the parent raising a child in their religion. Perhaps you could list the techniques you think are both commonly used by most mainstream religions and also qualify as 'brainwashing'.

My opponents in the debate have said that the adults/parents teaching the kids are not lying because they really believe what they are teraching and yet they also say that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.
This is completely contradictory to me and it hasn't been addressed by those opponsnts as of yet. Not that I am surprised.

That is NOT what I have said and I specifically addressed which part I don't agree with it in my last response to you. In fact, I don't think anybody on this thread has indicated that children are perfectly capable of figuring out fact from fiction.

The point being, why hamper a child's development by creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that they will spend a lot of time, sometimes a lifetime, trying to overcome?

This may be a reasonable argument to try and persuade parents from raising their child in a religion, although I think it's a stretch to claim that they are creating a staggering web of false memories and beliefs that the child will need to spend a lifetime overcoming. They aren't creating false memories and many people don't feel it necessary to 'overcome' the religious beliefs instilled as children. However, my main point is that it isn't sufficient to call a religious upbringing abusive.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If may or may not qualify as harmful depending on the definition of 'harm' used, but in general, whatever harm may be done it is not so detrimental that it is reasonable to seek to prevent parents from doing so.

Could you please give me some guidelines for how much harm needs to be done to be harmful.

 

[kellyb]

I don't see this as "employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion" . It seems pretty direct to me and open to me rather than deceptive and indirect.

Direct would be an open, direct statement : Questioning our agreed upon theology is forbidden. It will result in shunning. But they don't say that...it's just how it turns out when one attempts to understand from a perspective of disagreement.

That's a shame. I see it as the crucial charactoristic, particularly for the discussion here. If it's not harmful, it's certainly not abusive.

Well, I can think of at least a few examples that are harmful. Does living with a daily sense of guilt and shame over masturbation count? What about the shame that gay kids feel?

I don't think most mainstream churches are so restrictive that they forbid their youth from associating with jews, muslims, or methodists. The more restrictive and controlling churches may recommend it, I don't know, but they don't actually isolate their kids from those who are unsaved. Cults do

Not strictly forbidden but it's strongly encouraged that they "not be unequally yoked with unbelievers". It's a pretty fundamental teaching at many, many churches. Christian kids are supposed to lead the unsaved to Christ, not be friends with them in the traditional sense of the word. That's in the mainstream, too. It's not the rare exception.
And it's not just any Christian friends that will do. They shouldn't be "backslidden Christians" or "lukewarm Christians" or whatever other phrase they use for "not quite fanatical enough".

???? I've been to worship services at a variety of churches over my life. Emotional, occasionally. Hypnotic, never. I don't think this is charactoristic of mainstream churches. Going back, I see the definition says: "debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience" I don't think typical worship services can be called 'debilitating' though some do harp a lot on the 'subservience to god' bit.

I dunno...the freeflow chanting of many Sunday and Wednesday night worship services can be pretty darn hypnotic.

Dogmatic churches are this way, but not all churches are dogmatic. I know of a number of churchs that are self described as 'radically inclusive'. They welcome gay couples, etc. They don't ostracise those who disagree, but welcome them and the opportunity to win them over.

Would you say the mega churches are more dogmatic or inclusive?
In my experience, here in the south, the megachurches are all extremely dogmatic, and the inclusive churches are both rare and smaller.

This is pretty much limited to some fundamentalist churches, which I have already agreed could be considered cults. This isn't a charactoristic of mainstream churches.

That is what kids in the youthgroups of the megachurches are taught. It's in Jr. High where those teachings start popping up. It's not some rare exception. I'm not sure how to prove this, though.

No. Same as above. This one only applies to certain fundamentalist churches. A great many churches want their members, including their children, to question what they believe in and why. They aren't afraid of it and they encourage it. That even includes some conservative denominations in addition to the liberal ones.

I'm talking about the giant protestant Evangelical churches. The ones with very in depth, all consuming youth programs and discipleship programs. These are simply not rare exceptions. This is very much a big chunk of "mainstream Christianity'.

I just can't agree that this qualifies as brainwashing. Yes, there are some charactoristics in common with the definition, but that's also true of such things as goth culture, fan clubs for rock stars, etc. Churches, with some exceptions, don't fit the definition of cult well enough to convince me that such an experience is harmful to children.

It's nothing like goth culture or fan clubs. Nothing.
In a great many of the churches in America with 6,000+ membership, basically all the elements of brainwashy cults are present. It's just accepted as "normal" because it's popular.
That said, I'm still not part of the "religion is child abuse" camp. I mean, I guess it flirts with the line at times, but I find the idea of legally forbidding it even more frightening.

 

[Beth]

Could you please give me some guidelines for how much harm needs to be done to be harmful.

My rule of the thumb is that the harm caused by the parent should be greater than the harm done by society if we decide to interfer and stop it. If the harm from the interference is greater, then the rest of us need to back off and let the parents make their own choices about what risks and harms they are willing to expose their child to.

This is a flexible definition that means that what is considered harmful enough to justify society intervention will change with the type of intervention being proposed. In general, I think that religious training or indoctrination is not very high on the 'harmful' scale (i.e. 'lying' to children and perhaps preventing them from reaching their full potential) while intervention to stop it would be very damaging.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My rule of the thumb is that the harm caused by the parent should be greater than the harm done by society if we decide to interfer and stop it. If the harm from the interference is greater, then the rest of us need to back off and let the parents make their own choices about what risks and harms they are willing to expose their child to.

ANd this is a good reason not to ban teaching children religion, but it does not mean that it is not commonly intentionaly harmful to them, and that seems like a reasonable definition of abuse.

 

[Beth]

ANd this is a good reason not to ban teaching children religion, but it does not mean that it is not commonly intentionaly harmful to them, and that seems like a reasonable definition of abuse.

No, my definition does not imply that it is not intentionally harmful (I developed it when discussing the issue of banning spanking) nor do I think that intent to cause harm is a reasonable definition of abuse. Intention of harm covers things like vaccinations. It causes the child pain and a small harm (a pinprick) but it is considered an insignificant harm for a major gain and not abusive. Further, I don't think that parents teaching their children their religious beliefs is done with the intent of causing them harm but because they perceive it as beneficial to their child.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, my definition does not imply that it is not intentionally harmful (I developed it when discussing the issue of banning spanking) nor do I think that intent to cause harm is a reasonable definition of abuse. Intention of harm covers things like vaccinations. It causes the child pain and a small harm (a pinprick) but it is considered an insignificant harm for a major gain and not abusive. Further, I don't think that parents teaching their children their religious beliefs is done with the intent of causing them harm but because they perceive it as beneficial to their child.

Sowhat are the major long term benefits of catholicism?

And if you only care about their perceptions, then the FLDS church is not abusive either.

 

[Beth]

Sowhat are the major long term benefits of catholicism?

As I'm not a catholic, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer what benefits would be specific to catholicism.

And if you only care about their perceptions, then the FLDS church is not abusive either.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what the FLDS church is. Is it a branch of the Latter Day Saints or Mormons? What is it that the FLDS church does that you consider abusive to children?

 

[ponderingturtle]

As I'm not a catholic, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer what benefits would be specific to catholicism. I'm afraid I'm not sure what the FLDS church is. Is it a branch of the Latter Day Saints or Mormons? What is it that the FLDS church does that you consider abusive to children?

The FLDS church forces young women to marry older men as polygamous marriages. It teaches that in heaven men get graded by the number of wives that they had and that 4 is really needed.

So they marry girls of say 14 to older men. There is a case in court about one marrying her 19 year old cousin.

It is a branch of the Mormons who never gave up polygamy.

 

[Slimething]

As I'm not a catholic, I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer what benefits would be specific to catholicism.

You were very quick and resolute in declaring that the teaching of catholicism did not amount to "harm" just a few posts ago.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what the FLDS church is. Is it a branch of the Latter Day Saints or Mormons? What is it that the FLDS church does that you consider abusive to children?

So, when you state that religious indoctrination of children is not harmful or abusive, you really have no basis to judge. Did I get that right? I find it astounding that a person can make a statement that a specific practice is acceptable when they know nothing about that specific practice.

 

[Beth]

The FLDS church forces young women to marry older men as polygamous marriages. It teaches that in heaven men get graded by the number of wives that they had and that 4 is really needed.

So they marry girls of say 14 to older men. There is a case in court about one marrying her 19 year old cousin.

It is a branch of the Mormons who never gave up polygamy.

In my state, it's illegal for girls 14 and under to marry even with parental consent. That would qualify as statuatory rape here. At any rate, I think we can agree that it isn't a mainstream religion in the U.S.