Religious instruction is child abuse

[Robo Sapien]

I am totally with you Complexity, although I disagree with your HIV analogy. I think it would be better to liken religious upbringing to giving the child a massive wedgie that will stay up their ass for years (decades in most cases), which will only dislodge itself over time with lots of frustration and disappointment.

 

[Sophronius]

Actually Robo, I'd say the Hiv comparison is more valid than the wedgie one since religion harms and can indirectly cause the death of the religious person and those around him/her.


Anyway, I more or less agree with the sentiment expressed in the OP.

The way I see it, you can't really blame people for being religious. Life's a bitch, it's true, and I can understand it if people prefer false hope to none at all.

The problem comes when religious people start indoctrinating other people with their delusions, or if they start demanding that their delusions become recognized by the government. (one country under god)

The best solution, as far as I can see, is to make it a rule that government officials may not be openly religious. This only makes sense to me because you don't want people to think that being delusional is encouraged by the government, and you don't really want people who prefer faith to reason to lead the country anyway (let alone have access to nuclear weapons). This should send a strong message about the official view on religion and ensure that stupid rulings such as prayer time in schools can never come to pass.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The best solution, as far as I can see, is to make it a rule that government officials may not be openly religious.

You just proposed to trash the first amendment.

Not well played.

This is sadly ironic. Complexity has shared with us some of the trouble he's run into over being gay, in his life, and the discrimination and other friction he has dealt with, in other threads.

You, here, choose to demand that someone, for your own arbitrary reasons, needs to "stay in the closet."

Really, not well played.

DR

 

[Loss Leader]

I really hate the way that parents in my area indoctrinate their children to speak english. The child's brain is an amazing slate, waiting to take on any impressions that are made. By teaching english to children, their brains are forever hobbled - the sounds the can make with their mouths curtailed, unbounded concepts solidified forever as mere words, not to mention the cultural values inherent in the language with which they are forever saddled.

Teaching children english is child abuse and any parent that does so should have their skin flayed off a square inch a day over a 500 day period.

 

[Sophronius]

You just proposed to trash the first amendment.

So? It's not holy or anything. It makes no more sense to fervently stick to the constitution at all costs than it does to the bible.

And while I did make references to the US in my post, I meant my solution to be in general rather than for one specific country.

Also, I proposed an exception to it, which is not the same as trashing it completely.

This is sadly ironic. Complexity has shared with us some of the trouble he's run into over being gay, in his life, and the discrimination and other friction he has dealt with, in other threads.

Really, not well played.

To be honest, if I offended complexity I'd rather hear it from him than from you. I doubt I said anything that offended him.

You, here, choose to demand that someone, for your own arbitrary reasons, needs to "stay in the closet."

My reasons are not arbitrary and I did not say people would have to "stay in the closet", but rather that entering into politics would require people to enter the closet voluntarily.

Also, comparing religion with being gay seems kind of strange. One is mostly voluntary, the other one isn't. One can be tremendously harmful, the other one can't be. If being gay was a choice and every time someone said "I'm gay" a random person on the planet would die, I would indeed be tempted to tell people to stop saying that.

That said, I do understand and respect your criticism of my proposed solution. I'm not sure if it would really solve anything anyway to be perfectly honest.

 

[KingMerv00]

So? It's not holy or anything. It makes no more sense to fervently stick to the constitution at all costs than it does to the bible.

The Constitution is not holy but it is important. If you ignore one bit, why not ignore it all?

 

[Sophronius]

Because some bits might be good while others aren't.


What about not having faith in schools? Should teachers be allowed to indoctrinate children with religion because it is their right to express their beliefs?

Mind you I'm not saying that politicians should not be allowed to be religious. Just that they shouldn't be allowed to publicly advocate it during their work.

 

[Vortigern99]

The premise of the OP is absurd and horrifying. I've been agnostic and scientific in thought since about age 14, but to this day I find tremendous value in religious instruction.

The study of ancient beliefs, practices and legendary history tell us a great deal about the peoples and cultures from which we descend. The purposes of religious law include social cohesion, assuaging the fear of death, and protecting innocents from harm, and are as old as human consciousness itself.

You personally might not need system of faith to help you be a good person, but many people do. Many religious persons I know and/or come across in my daily routine (knocking on doors, thank you!) -- whether Christian or Moslem or what-have-you -- are kind and decent people. I've studied with Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics and Lutherans, and among all of these, I've found a love of community and a compassion between individuals that made a lasting impression on me.

I understand that you, Complexity, have been persecuted by the religious for simply being who you are. I too have encountered religious-fueled vitriol, and when I see it it angers me. But such hate-mongers and freedom-bashers represent a minority of their faith; further they're missing the point of their own religion.

Christ spoke of loving one's neighbor as oneself, and of refraining from judgment of others. The people who have insulted and harmed you, or anyone, are twisting their religion to justify their own biases, rather than opening their minds to the message of love and forgiveness (of self and others) inherent in all their parables and metaphors.

For these reasons I utterly reject the premise of the OP and thread title. If the word "instruction" were changed to "inflexible indoctrination" then I might be inclined to agree.

 

[BobHaulk]

The extremes of religious fundamentalism are fairly visible, and the nutcases are obviously out there. The anti-religious craziness isn't as visible in the Real World, but it's reassuring to see that it's there all right.

Anti religious? yeah too right. When you were belted at school on a regular basis by a reverend of the church of scotland you might feel the same.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So? It's not holy or anything. It makes no more sense to fervently stick to the constitution at all costs than it does to the bible.

From what you say there, the principles embodied in it are not very important to you. Thanks for letting me know.

And while I did make references to the US in my post, I meant my solution to be in general rather than for one specific country.

Good luck with that.

To be honest, if I offended complexity I'd rather hear it from him than from you. I doubt I said anything that offended him.

It wasn't about offense, it was about irony of your insistence on the religious stuffing themselves back into the closet, and his starting this thread, and his shared experiences with us on the personal costs to him of that sort of thinking.

My reasons are not arbitrary and I did not say people would have to "stay in the closet", but rather that entering into politics would require people to enter the closet voluntarily.

In other words, I was right. Thanks for that.

That said, I do understand and respect your criticism of my proposed solution. I'm not sure if it would really solve anything anyway to be perfectly honest.

It's been good, thanks to you as well.

 

[Personal Grudge]

Perhaps I'm mistaking Sophronius' meaning, but I took the suggestion about prohibiting government officials from referencing religion to refer more to official speeches/functions. And if that's the point, I actually rather agree with that.

I don't think it's wrong for a government official to admit to being Christian, Muslim, what have you. However, when making an official speech to the country, I feel like the obligatory "and God bless America" is completely unnecessary in the United States. I'm not exactly worked up into a frenzy about it, but I do find it somewhat inappropriate.

Now, I'm not sure if that would be considered a violation of free speech. If my employer requires me to give a speech to my company but tells me to leave all elements of religion out of it, is that a violation of free speech?

 

[a3sigma]

I really hate the way that parents in my area indoctrinate their children to speak english. The child's brain is an amazing slate, waiting to take on any impressions that are made. By teaching english to children, their brains are forever hobbled - the sounds the can make with their mouths curtailed, unbounded concepts solidified forever as mere words, not to mention the cultural values inherent in the language with which they are forever saddled.

Teaching children english is child abuse and any parent that does so should have their skin flayed off a square inch a day over a 500 day period.

Good points. I strongly urge that kids be raised multilingual, and exposed to a wide range of cultures and ideologies from an early age. The opposite of indoctrination is free thinking, not another doctrine.

 

[Loss Leader]

I strongly urge that kids be raised multilingual

All languages artificially constrain the mind. Teaching language of any sort is child abuse. Children should be free to explore languages themselves and make their own choice when they turn 18.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Perhaps I'm mistaking Sophronius' meaning, but I took the suggestion about prohibiting government officials from referencing religion to refer more to official speeches/functions. And if that's the point, I actually rather agree with that.

I don't think it's wrong for a government official to admit to being Christian, Muslim, what have you. However, when making an official speech to the country, I feel like the obligatory "and God bless America" is completely unnecessary in the United States. I'm not exactly worked up into a frenzy about it, but I do find it somewhat inappropriate.

Now, I'm not sure if that would be considered a violation of free speech. If my employer requires me to give a speech to my company but tells me to leave all elements of religion out of it, is that a violation of free speech?

When an elected official is making a speech, he is expressing his thoughts on the subject of the speech (not the collective thoughts of all) and if he wants to express a general sentiment towards a faith he participates in, then he should be free to do so. I think the main issue here is separating the public official from the citizen. When Barrack Obama is signing a bill or performing some other presidential duty, then he is acting as a public official, but when he is making a speech or living out his life, then he is acting as a citizen and should have all the rights of a citizen.

 

[The True Scotsman]

You personally might not need system of faith to help you be a good person, but many people do.

I'd disagree with that. Morality is generally based upon sentiments hardwired into us and only enhanced by external moral systems (depending on the quality of the system). I don't believe people need a faith to be moral. I believe they only need proper moral instruction and secure and stable economic and political circumstances.

 

[The True Scotsman]

I am totally with you Complexity, although I disagree with your HIV analogy. I think it would be better to liken religious upbringing to giving the child a massive wedgie that will stay up their ass for years (decades in most cases), which will only dislodge itself over time with lots of frustration and disappointment.

That underwear must be gross after wearing it for decades.

 

[KingMerv00]

Because some bits might be good while others aren't.

So then change the Constitution, don't ignore it.

 

[KingMerv00]

I think that religious instruction is child abuse and should be regarded as such.

I think that it is morally akin to deliberately exposing a child to HIV.

I'm under no illusion that we'll be able to prevent or even reduce religious indoctrination, but I think we need to hold those who do it accountable and never let them forget the damage that they are doing to their own and other people's children.

So do you want my parents arrested?

 

[plumjam]

I agree with Complexity to the extent that I am also fed up with holier-than-thou attitudes, smugness and excessive preachiness ...

Oh, the irony.

 

[Sophronius]

Perhaps I'm mistaking Sophronius' meaning, but I took the suggestion about prohibiting government officials from referencing religion to refer more to official speeches/functions. And if that's the point, I actually rather agree with that.

I don't think it's wrong for a government official to admit to being Christian, Muslim, what have you. However, when making an official speech to the country, I feel like the obligatory "and God bless America" is completely unnecessary in the United States. I'm not exactly worked up into a frenzy about it, but I do find it somewhat inappropriate.

Yep, this is more or less what I meant. Thank you very much for clarifying.

Now, I'm not sure if that would be considered a violation of free speech. If my employer requires me to give a speech to my company but tells me to leave all elements of religion out of it, is that a violation of free speech?

Personally, I would say not.

So then change the Constitution, don't ignore it.

I never said anything about ignoring the constitution. I never even brought it up.

When an elected official is making a speech, he is expressing his thoughts on the subject of the speech (not the collective thoughts of all) and if he wants to express a general sentiment towards a faith he participates in, then he should be free to do so. I think the main issue here is separating the public official from the citizen. When Barrack Obama is signing a bill or performing some other presidential duty, then he is acting as a public official, but when he is making a speech or living out his life, then he is acting as a citizen and should have all the rights of a citizen.

I agree on this note. However, what if the official advocates enforcing a literal interpretation of his/her holy book? For example, an islamic politician saying that everyone who leaves the islamic faith should be sentenced to death?

Now, in an ideal world he should be allowed to say so and it wouldn't matter because he is just one nut and nobody would listen to him. However, in reality people do listen to him and are probably more likely to listen to him than to a more softspoken official because people are wired that way. Of course the problem is that the guy was appointed (directly or indirectly) by the public in the first place.

Which brings me to the problem with the democratic system. How can you expect people to vote rationally when they have an inherent tendency towards delusion which can so easily be taken advantage of? Don't get me wrong, the democratic system is still the best we have, but the problem remains.

That's why the best solution I could think of is to try to prevent politicians from openly ranting about religion and using that to influence people, so that people at least get a chance to think rationally.

But I'll submit that it's not a perfect solution.