Religious instruction is child abuse

[Complexity]

It ranks right up there with "religious instruction is child abuse".

Unfortunately, you believe the tripe you post. I, on the other hand, am just trying to get a rise out of you (and succeeding admirably).

I responded. I wasn't aroused, aggravated, angry, disturbed, and certainly not challenged.

You occasionally evoke a moment's fun, that is all.

 

[Malerin]

Why?

Why would it be awkward to have same sex parents? The same reason it's awkward when all your teen friends are smoking and you're not. Conformity's a bitch.

 

[Malerin]

I responded. I wasn't aroused, aggravated, angry, disturbed, and certainly not challenged.

You occasionally evoke a moment's fun, that is all.

And in the end, isn't that the only thing that matters?

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I wish that their value systems were well considered, cleaned up, and offered up with responsibility, honesty, and humility, and without the claim of divine origin.

With all due respect, I do not think that your promoting of the view that religious instruction is 'morally akin' to exposing a child to HIV, displays either responsibility or humility.

For it to be responsible, wouldn't you have to know for certain that every single instance of religious instruction is deleterious to every child's happiness and wellbeing, and that in actual fact there are never instances of a child being happy and fulfilled, precisely in part due to their religious upbringing?
I would suggest that that is way beyond your ken and quite plainly factually wrong in any case. The fact that you still propound this view in the absence of this knowledge and with no attempt to present even the slightest shred of evidence to back up your assertions, also suggests that this view you hold is either lacking in humility or honesty.

 

[Complexity]

With all due respect, I do not think that your promoting of the view that religious instruction is 'morally akin' to exposing a child to HIV, displays either responsibility or humility.

For it to be responsible, wouldn't you have to know for certain that every single instance of religious instruction is deleterious to every child's happiness and wellbeing, and that in actual fact there are never instances of a child being happy and fulfilled, precisely in part due to their religious upbringing?
I would suggest that that is way beyond your ken and quite plainly factually wrong in any case. The fact that you still propound this view in the absence of this knowledge and with no attempt to present even the slightest shred of evidence to back up your assertions, also suggests that this view you hold is either lacking in humility or honesty.

I disagree, of course.

I suggest that religious belief requires (or, more accurately, is) belief in the supernatural, in something apart from reality, something that is outside the scope of reason and science, something for which there is absolutely no evidence, something which does not exist.

Religious belief is wrong, it damages the intellect, and it is not consistent with reality.

Teaching religion as a belief system is injurious to a person in every instance.

That person may be happy, indeed deleriously happy. That person may feel fulfilled and rapturously blissful. Those feelings are based upon an invalid system of errors and lies. Perhaps you think this is enough, and turn away from the happy religious wallowing in blissful ignorance. I do not.

Most people are capable of so much more.

The religious affliction deserves to be condemned and opposed, not left to fester and injure.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

Religious belief is wrong, it damages the intellect, and it is not consistent with reality.

How is the intellect damaged? Do people lose I.Q. when they accept God into their lives? Less ability to concentrate? Make increasing errors of judgement?Any studies you care to share? Damaged does not mean, 'disagrees with Complexity'.

Teaching religion as a belief system is injurious to a person in every instance.

That person may be happy, indeed deleriously happy. That person may feel fulfilled and rapturously blissful.

So teaching religion as a belief system is always injurious to a person, but not in the instance where they are deliriously happy and fulfilled?

Those feelings are based upon an invalid system of errors and lies. Perhaps you think this is enough, and turn away from the happy religious wallowing in blissful ignorance. I do not.

Most people are capable of so much more.

I may disagree about the factual content of a person's beliefs, but I would not suggest that they are abusive in simply imparting them to their children, unless actual abuse, i.e. physical and emotional trauma, was occurring.

For example, if I was having a conversation with a kid of Christians who were Young Earth Creationists, I would be candid with them that they might want to have a another think about that idea.
If I found out that the parents of that kid disapproved of me sharing my thoughts with their son or daughter and did not approve of access to any other source on the topic, of course I would disapprove strongly of this myself and I would let that be known. I would still hesitate to call it abuse though, because that is such a strong word.
If I found out that the parents of the kid threatened him or her and/or physically co-erced them in any way in relation to this matter, then yes, that would be abuse.

 

[wollery]

I disagree, of course.

I suggest that religious belief requires (or, more accurately, is) belief in the supernatural, in something apart from reality, something that is outside the scope of reason and science, something for which there is absolutely no evidence, something which does not exist.

Religious belief is wrong, it damages the intellect, and it is not consistent with reality.

Teaching religion as a belief system is injurious to a person in every instance.

That person may be happy, indeed deleriously happy. That person may feel fulfilled and rapturously blissful. Those feelings are based upon an invalid system of errors and lies. Perhaps you think this is enough, and turn away from the happy religious wallowing in blissful ignorance. I do not.

Most people are capable of so much more.

The religious affliction deserves to be condemned and opposed, not left to fester and injure.

You are wrong. Demonstrably so.

I have a good friend who is both a respected astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest. He doesn't just believe in God, he's an ordained member of the clergy, and he does top notch scientific work in the area of star forming galaxies.

He's also perfectly happy to discuss the bible, in great depth and with a critical attitude. And he knows the bible extremely well.

In what way did his religious upbringing damage his intellect?

 

[Piscivore]

(I had replied 'Nonsense' and asked what was nonsense)

I don't think that kids have to be indoctrinated. I think they have to be raised and educated. I don't think that that must or ought to include indoctrination.

What is the difference?

The 'left to themselves' part triggered my earlier response of 'Nonsense'.

Yes, people came up with all of the garbage that I object to. They did it because they were people, not because they were people 'left to themselves'.

In the absence of education, people make stuff up and act as if it is true. It's called "superstition". What is "nonsense" about that?

Why do you think people invented religion?

 

[jakesteele]

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.

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/trouble_with_atheism.php

I’m always struck with the irony of an atheist criticizing religion as being pompous, smug or condescending.

I’m sure everyone’s seen this documentary before, but if you go to 6:20 in you will see a rabid, fundamentalist atheist carrying a sign in front of a church spewing out venom and hatred with a scary zealotry. He’s cut from the same bolt of cloth that religious zealots who burn witches at the stake come from.

If this guy had the power he would impose his will on you and your children and indoctrinate the holy living hell out of all of you. His attitude is one of “kill ‘em all and let Darwin sort it out.” If you put your nose to the breeze you will catch the “sulfurous whiff of fundamentalism”.
Also, at 12:40 in there is an interview with Peter Akins, professor at Oxford University, who reeks of unbelievable arrogance and condescension to the degree of intellectual certitude that only a zealot can have. I’d say we’ve got a classical case of the pot calling the kettle black. Let the atheist amongst us without arrogance smash the first stone tablet.

 

[cienaños]

Putting aside Complexity's winning charm, he does have a point.

Indeed it should be argued that religion has run its course. Specifically, the magical bits. There's just too much evidence pointing in the other direction.

Hey, but all's not lost. We can hang on to the good bits. The ones that work for us. Ethics, morals, hell - spirituality even.

 

[Sophronius]

I should have been more clear. When a citizen is acting as a public official they should be neutral to the highest degree possible towards any and all belief systems and should have no right to legislate their beliefs on to others as that is a violation of liberty. There does exist the problem of general ignorance among the people, but I hardly believe that that is the case in the United States. The majority of people believe in a God or higher power, but few are willing to curtail the rights of others in many circumstances and the more extreme the rights violation, the less supporter one will regularly gain in the modern United States. To reduce the problem of ignorance in a population, the best method isn't to restrict rights, but rather to increase education.

What about all the people who say that they will never vote for a president who does not profess to being christian? Even if politicians were forbidden from preaching religion they would still talk about it during private interviews and such, and people would vote based on that. So it's not an easy problem to solve. :/

I agree that improving education would be the most ideal solution, but I am kind of wary of suggesting that since "improve education" is such vague suggestion which everyone always puts forward as an instant solution to everything, and every time people try it it just seems to get worse.

 

[Belz...]

They frequently are, but they shouldn't be.

I don't think it is necessary to indoctrinate in order to educate.

In fact, to the extent that indoctrination is taking place, education is not.

It depends on what your definition of education and indoctrination are. The two are sometimes difficult to distinguish.

 

[Belz...]

You have evidence for any of these claims? The overwhelming majority of people in this forum have come from a background that included at least some religious education and it does not cripple their ability to think rationally or hamper their capacity for independent thought as you seem to imply.

Indeed. My mother taught me all about God and this and that, and somehow it never worked for me. I'm simply not compatible with this kind of belief.

 

[Belz...]

I'm just not sure why you think that other people shouldn't offer their value systems for their own kids to pick and choose too?

And how else would it be, anyway ? Parents will teach their kids their own views and opinions by necessity. They certainly won't teach them something they don't believe in.

Of course, they can teach them critical thinking, as well, if they believe in that, but that's a form of indoctrination, too. Indoctrination isn't a bad thing, necessarily.

 

[Belz...]

Why would it be awkward to have same sex parents? The same reason it's awkward when all your teen friends are smoking and you're not. Conformity's a bitch.

Well, at least now we know you weren't joking.

 

[Sophronius]

I don't get why people say indoctrination and education are the same.

Example A: You offer someone several viewpoints, and tell them what you believe yourself, all while remaining objective. You provide as much information as you can and suggest that they make up their own mind.

Example B: You tell someone to believe X, or else.


How are they the same? It is not as if the teacher/parent in example A says that the person they are teaching HAS to think critically, or else.

This seems like just another variation of the old "Atheism is just another religion!" argument to me. Only then applied to thinking critically.


Edit: Also, I should note that instructing a child in any religion that says you will go to hell if you do not believe exactly what the religion tells you to, that would automatically count as indoctrination as per example B.

 

[Belz...]

I don't get why people say indoctrination and education are the same.

Didn't say it was the same. But in order to educate you have to make someone accept some things as true. One way or another you will have to indoctrinate them.

Example A: You offer someone several viewpoints, and tell them what you believe yourself, all while remaining objective. You provide as much information as you can and suggest that they make up their own mind.

Example B: You tell someone to believe X, or else.

B is not just indoctrination, but coercion.

 

[Sophronius]

Didn't say it was the same.

You didn't, other people did.

But in order to educate you have to make someone accept some things as true. One way or another you will have to indoctrinate them.

Where did you get this from?

You seem to agree that example A is not indoctrination. So I have to conclude that you think that using the method in example A is not sufficient.

If you are thinking of things like "don't touch hot pans", it is perfectly possible to teach that without indoctrination. For one thing, it can be easily shown to be a bad idea.

Also, I would maintain that pointing out that you as a parent have more experience with life in general and as such that it would be a good idea for the kid to listen to you is not an example of indoctrination. As such it is perfectly possible to make authoritative statements without indoctrinating your children. Or hell, you could even hit your children if they do something you want to discourage (not that I support this) and it wouldn't necessarily be indoctrination.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I don't get why people say indoctrination and education are the same.

Example A: You offer someone several viewpoints, and tell them what you believe yourself, all while remaining objective. You provide as much information as you can and suggest that they make up their own mind.

Example B: You tell someone to believe X, or else.


How are they the same? It is not as if the teacher/parent in example A says that the person they are teaching HAS to think critically, or else.

This seems like just another variation of the old "Atheism is just another religion!" argument to me. Only then applied to thinking critically.


Edit: Also, I should note that instructing a child in any religion that says you will go to hell if you do not believe exactly what the religion tells you to, that would automatically count as indoctrination as per example B.

Isn't most direct instruction to children closer to Example B (and I mean not just in the religious realm)? Example A is the sort of instruction we get in college when we already have deep grounding in some field so that we can sift through the possibilities.

We are taught morals by watching how others function in the world, by some direct instruction and by having our moms beat our backsides when we err.

We don't give young children options about how to read "Jack and the Bean Stalk" or any other story. They are not capable of multiple interpretations at a young age, so it wouldn't make any sense. We don't give them moral options -- we are all told how to act in certain situations.

That is what child rearing is all about.

 

[Piscivore]

You seem to agree that example A is not indoctrination. So I have to conclude that you think that using the method in example A is not sufficient.

Sometimes it is not. Not everybody has the same capacity for learning as others, especially kids. When they are very young, there are many circumstances where they lack sufficient background information and personal experience to not make a decision that would harm them.

If you are thinking of things like "don't touch hot pans", it is perfectly possible to teach that without indoctrination. For one thing, it can be easily shown to be a bad idea.

How? You could let the kid get burned, but that is abuse. If you tell them they will get hurt, and expect them to accept your word, that's argument form authority. They won't understand a lecture on thermodynamics.

Also, I would maintain that pointing out that you as a parent have more experience with life in general and as such that it would be a good idea for the kid to listen to you is not an example of indoctrination. As such it is perfectly possible to make authoritative statements without indoctrinating your children.

Argument from authority is argument from authority, even if the results gets one what one wants.

Or hell, you could even hit your children if they do something you want to discourage (not that I support this) and it wouldn't necessarily be indoctrination.

I'm eager to learn what your definition of "indoctrination" is.