Is coercive religious indoctrination child abuse?

[Puppycow]

I have no problem people teaching religion to their children if it's something like the following:
"This is what we believe, it's part of your cultural heritage, and we'd really be happy if you believe it too, but ultimately you are your own person and are free to decide for yourself."

But I believe that if it gets much more coercive than that, it's a form of child abuse. Threats of damnation for example are very traumatic, coercive and abusive. Therefore parents who make such threats or expose their children to them are child abusers.

Even worse, insulating children from the outside world so as to prevent exposure to information that is generally available which contradicts a fictional map of reality that is being instilled is another form of child abuse.

I understand that these child abusers were often abused themselves in the same way, and they love their children and think that they are doing what it best for them, but they are in fact mistaken, and it is nevertheless abuse.

For the purpose of illustration of an extreme example, which seems to be perfectly legal and tolerated in America, I submit the following, which Bef called to our attention:

We had a Cadet Org set up at Flag Land Base that had more than 50 children. These kids weren’t allowed to mix with other children, they weren’t allowed to go to a school because they would learn the wrong information about life. These kids, by the age of 7, are telling you that they know that they’ve lived for 75 trillion years, that they know they’re supposed to be superhuman beings, and the reason why they’re not is because they were bad people in a past life, and this is why they lost their abilities. They know that if anybody doesn’t join the Sea Org, that they’re helping to destroy the planet, and they’re an enemy and they are not to be spoken to.

This is the voice coming out of 7 year old children. Can you imagine what a 7 year old grows up to be by the time he’s 13? We’re talking about a human being that knows nothing about family values, because he doesn’t have a family, he doesn’t play sport, he doesn’t watch TV, doesn’t read the newspaper, doesn’t read great works of fiction, he knows nothing except that L. Ron Hubbard was a god.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is definitely a point where it becomes child abuse, but I'm not sure exactly where that point is.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'd say any coercive indoctrination can be abusive.

 

[Dancing David]

Well, unfortunately many patents and other adults harm children in mayw ays that are acceptable at many different times.

I personally loathe the "You are going to hell stuff" or "Support X or you aren't a patriot"

But many, many ,many parents engage in coersive tactics all the time.

 

[bluesjnr]

My Mother kinda terrified me as a kid. Especially with her "God can see everything you do and can judge you on your thoughts". I'm agnostic but still cannot speak His name in vain without cringing inwardly and worrying that I might just have ****** up.

It's nowhere near the "anal reflex test" but I often wonder if it constitutes some level of abuse; especially as I'm a 46 yo bloke who should know better.

 

[fuelair]

Yes it is - but not a type that will be made illegal any time in the near future.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'd say any coercive indoctrination can be abusive.

What you call “coercive indoctrination” is the very same thing that most people regard as parents fulfilling their responsibility to teach their children right from wrong.

 

[Eyeron]

After watching "Jesus Camp" and "Obsession", I've just got to go with yes. God the crap they show ibn those films is creepy. "Obsession" is about the Muslim world being obsessed with Jews around the world and how they demean them on their tv. One outstanding part shows a small child about six or seven or so saying about how Jews should be killed because Allah commands it.

That kind of thing really scared the hell out of me.

 

[devnull]

yes.

 

[geni]

Is coercive nationalist indoctrination child abuse?

 

[Darat]

The question has come up before now and I've found a post I made a couple of years back that still sums up my views:

I'm in a country where there is a state religion and where we've been embroiled in sectarian violence and discrimination for literally centuries.

And whilst I am certain that there would still have been violence and discrimination without religion I am certain that religion has prolonged a lot of the violence and discrimination.

So in my country we have a siltation that we can demonstrate that parent's indoctrinating (note not educating) their children has directly lead to violence and discrimination, why as a society should we not try to stop the perpetuation of such practices.

Should this be done via legislation? I don't particularly believe that is necessary since I believe on the whole legislation follows behind the shifts in societies attitudes on issues such as this.

What we should strive to do is educate people the dangers of indoctrination, to explain that bringing children up to believe that because "they" in the next street have an extra line in the Lord's prayer is not a reason to judge them as being evil and wrong and therefore discrimination and violence against them can be justified.

The reason why religious indoctrination of children is a form of child abuse is the same reason as we consider indoctrination of adults to be wrong. To deliberately use an emotive example - if you do not think religious indoctrination of children or adults is wrong then you have no rational objection to something like the mass suicide that happened at Jonestown.

ETA: This is what religious indoctrination leads to:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/jonestown/die_2.html

A tape-recording of the mass-suicide reveals that there was little dissent about the decision to die. One or two women who felt that the children should be able to live protested, but they were soon reassured by reminders of the alternative undignified death at the hand of the enemy and the shouted support of the group. The poison-laced drink was brought to the hall and dispensed. The babies and small children, over two hundred of them, were first, with the poison poured into their mouths with syringes. As parents watched their children die, they too swallowed the fatal potion. The moments before the final decision to die brought resistance from a few, but armed guards who surrounded the room shot many of them. Of the estimated 1100 people believed to have been present at “Jonestown” at the time, 913 died, including Jim Jones; the rest somehow escaped into the jungle. It is not certain whether Jones shot himself or was shot by an unknown person.

The most puzzling question, which has arisen out of the tragedy at "Jonestown", is how one man could achieve such control over a large group of people to the point that they would willingly die at his command. It would be easy to assume that “Jonestown” was a unique situation that could only have occurred because of Jim Jones’s dynamic and charismatic personality, combined with the weakness and vulnerability of his victims. Such an analysis may bring some peace that such a thing could never happen again, but it falls a long way short of providing true understanding of the situation, thereby leaving us all vulnerable to the danger of further tragedies such as “Jonestown” occurring.

And this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4763731.stm

CCTV footage could provide vital clues for detectives investigating the murder of a 15-year-old boy in County Antrim, a court has heard.

Michael McIlveen died in hospital on Monday after being attacked by a gang at Garfield Place, Ballymena on Sunday.

...snip...

The former Presbyterian moderator, Dr John Dunlop, said more should be done to tackle sectarianism.

"We haven't recognised how widespread this problem is," he said.

"Some people think sectarianism is an infection that afflicts some people here and there. What I am saying is that sectarianism is an endemic infection which affects all of us across the whole society, Catholics and Protestants, and people in different social classes."

...snip...

Stopping parents religiously indoctrinating children is not suppression of religion it is promoting freedom of religion.

I don't think there is anything wrong with anyone educating a child about their or other folk's religion. Religion after all, whether you personally like it or not, forms a part of most of our societies so not to educate a child about religion would be doing the child a disservice.

However indoctrination is not education, indoctrination's goal is to shut down thought, it is to prevent someone from forming their own opinions and being able to learn for themselves, that is wrong whether it is done to an adult or a child.

 

[Darat]

Is coercive nationalist indoctrination child abuse?

It is indoctrination that is wrong, not the subject.

 

[Meadmaker]

However indoctrination is not education,

I've participated in many discussions on this topic, and no one has ever been able to tell me a good test to use to distinguish the two.

It seems that the key set of features that distinguish indoctrination from education is

1. The "indoctrinator" actually believes what he is teaching.
2. The "indoctrinator" actually wants the child to believe what he is teaching.
and
3. The "indoctrinator" doesn't agree with me.

 

[Darat]

I've participated in many discussions on this topic, and no one has ever been able to tell me a good test to use to distinguish the two.

...snip....

Well since you have in the past stated that indoctrination works and that the goal of goal of indoctrination is to (at least) reduce the ability of a child to think critically about a subject, just found where you stated this in the past and your words were "...If you mean that "indoctrination" by definition reduces the ability to think critically, you're right.

Perhaps a test to distinguish between the two would be "Does it reduce the ability to think critically?"

 

[Filippo Lippi]

Yep

 

[Foster Zygote]

What you call “coercive indoctrination” is the very same thing that most people regard as parents fulfilling their responsibility to teach their children right from wrong.

I didn't call anything "coercive indoctrination".

 

[Meadmaker]

Well since you have in the past stated that indoctrination works and that the goal of goal of indoctrination is to (at least) reduce the ability of a child to think critically about a subject, just found where you stated this in the past and your words were "...If you mean that "indoctrination" by definition reduces the ability to think critically, you're right.

Perhaps a test to distinguish between the two would be "Does it reduce the ability to think critically?"

Of course, I amended that later to mean that indoctrination reduces the power to think critically if it is successful, but you have consistently ignored that part, along with all the rest of the context of the comment. I'm glad I'm not a politician. They are judged on out of context sound bites all the time.

Part of the context of that conversation included my own child's situation. He attends a Jewish school where they perform what is, by any reasonable definition of the word, indoctrination. They tell him that God exists, that Judaism is a religion revealed by God, that good Jews practice Judaism, and they barely mention any other religion. They perform religious rituals in school. They read the Torah, and the other Jewish writings such as the Talmud and the Mishnah. It's Judaism, Judaism, Judaism, morning, noon, and evening. When they rise up and when they lie down.

As he approaches the ripe old age of 11, he is beginning to declare that he does not believe in God. So did they indoctrinate him? Did they abuse him? Did I abuse him by sending him to that school?



I think it is possible to abuse a child in the course of religious indoctrination, but the indoctrination itself is not inherently abusive. There's no magic switch that forces someone to believe something just because you say it is true. If you lock him in a closet and tell him to be good or suffer everlasting damnation after death, and beatings until them, that's abuse. If you tell him that Jesus loves him, but gets really mad at people who don't love him back, that's religion.

By the way, I have been able to compare my kid's math and science curriculum to those of similarly aged public school kids. His is far superior.

 

[Darat]

Of course, I amended that later to mean that indoctrination reduces the power to think critically if it is successful,

...snip...

Well I can't see how that is different to what I posted and how I used your definition to provide the (possible) test you were looking for - however if you think I have taken your comment out of context and in doing so altered its meaning then I apologise since that was not my intent.

That aside - what about the test I proposed "Does it reduce the ability to think critically?" or perhaps to expand it a bit to include your comments about success: "Is the intent to reduce the ability to think critically?"

Does that give us a means to distinguish between "education" and "indoctrination"?

And a further question, in my post a few above where I quoted from the mass suicides at Jonestown - were those people educated or indoctrinated in their religion?

 

[Cainkane1]

My Mother kinda terrified me as a kid. Especially with her "God can see everything you do and can judge you on your thoughts". I'm agnostic but still cannot speak His name in vain without cringing inwardly and worrying that I might just have ****** up.

It's nowhere near the "anal reflex test" but I often wonder if it constitutes some level of abuse; especially as I'm a 46 yo bloke who should know better.

In my particular case I've always had a problem with being profane. When I'm frustrated the first thing that used to come out of my mouth was G------t. I'm trying to quit not because I'm offending some sky man but I don't want to offend anyone. Cussing has gotten me into a lot of trouble with friends, relatives and employers but old habits die hard.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Yes. But it is currently an acceptible form of child abuse.