Fundamentalism and Children

[Ichneumonwasp]

http://www.asca.org.au/childabuse/ca_definitions.html



(Bolding mine)

Teaching children lies is definitely abuse.

Teaching the Bohr model of the atom is child abuse?

Have you read "Naked Lunch", watched the Matrix movies, read "Slaughterhouse Five"? Why does Tralfamador exist?

 

[articulett]

Teaching the Bohr model of the atom is child abuse?

Have you read "Naked Lunch", watched the Matrix movies, read "Slaughterhouse Five"? Why does Tralfamador exist?

Teaching things as models and stories and beliefs is a lot different than teaching things as "higher truths" that must be believed lest you suffer forever... and that those who don't believe such things will do so.

Religious beliefs are too often taught as "higher truths" that MUST be believed and that belief is salvation worthy--I would imagine most people can tell the difference.

 

[Kopji]

The 'origami' version of the site is funnier.

http://www.geocities.jp/happyorigamiministry/

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Teaching things as models and stories and beliefs is a lot different than teaching things as "higher truths" that must be believed lest you suffer forever... and that those who don't believe such things will do so.

Religious beliefs are too often taught as "higher truths" that MUST be believed and that belief is salvation worthy--I would imagine most people can tell the difference.

The reference to those books was for an entirely different purpose, but to discuss your idea........

if I decide to live the 'higher truth' encoded in "Huckleberry Finn" and I teach my children to live that 'higher truth' as well, have I committed child abuse?

That people use carrot and stick stories to motivate particular behaviors is child abuse?

Should I sue Wes Craven and the makers of the "Friday the 13th" series because they encode moral messages in their films -- have teenage sex and you die?

Where's the line here? Is it only abuse if they are biblical literalists? What if you teach your children that we don't know the nature of reality but Christian virtues supply a great way to live? Is that child abuse?

We tell lies all the time. We lie to children frequently. We lie to each other and we lie to ourselves. Every time I use the word "self" I am telling a convenient fiction. I know it is a lie but I still do it. Am I an adult abuser as well as a child abuser?

I'm sorry, but the entire line of argument that telling lies to children is child abuse is wrong-headed. It is silly. It doesn't deserve the respect that any of you seem to give it.

What is wrong with calling things what they are instead of trying to create these new over-blown categories that do no one any good?

 

[Henners]

What is wrong with calling things what they are instead of trying to create these new over-blown categories that do no one any good?

A child lies awake at night, afraid that she will die in her sleep and go to hell because she told her mother a lie that day.

Is that child being cared for, or abused?

If the child is being cared for, how many nights of sleep-deprivation does it take qualify as abuse?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

A child lies awake at night, afraid that she will die in her sleep and go to hell because she told her mother a lie that day.

Is that child being cared for, or abused?

If the child is being cared for, how many nights of sleep-deprivation does it take qualify as abuse?

How does the false dichotomy of 'cared for'/'abused' enter into the picture?

Stories of heaven/hell are carrot and stick stories like almost all carrot and stick stories we tell children. Children in past were told that wolves would eat them if they entered the woods at night. Was that child abuse? Children may watch Freddy Kruger movies and lie awake at night fearing that something someone in their past did might impact their life. Is that abuse? We used to tell kids that if they sucked their thumbs a man with scissors would come and cut them off to keep their thumbs out of their mouths. If they lied awake at night considering the possibilities is that child abuse?

This whole idea is an abuse of the idea of child abuse. I would think that anyone who suffered actual abuse at the hands of all the sick bastards in this world would be disgusted by it.

 

[bokonon]

Who is talking about arresting parents or putting them in leg irons?

Qayak is talking about fines.

Don't you think the Dawkins piece is a good piece for all parents to read? http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html --and worth discussing or even posting in schools?

Yes, it's a good read. Assigning it in school, or discussing it in school, IMO, would be a violation of the first amendment. It's fine to discuss "how do we know what we know" and make the connection to evidence. It's fine to discuss what constitutes good evidence, and how to identify it. It's fine to learn about logical fallacies.

Making a connection to religion in the classroom is not okay. I'm sorry, but that's one of the things I give up in exchange for not having the more numerous Christian teachers using class time to tell my kids that Jesus died for their sins.

It is weird how people step around the topic to make it into this issue where people are under arrest for taking their kids to church. Is anyone suggesting that?

Qayak is suggesting fines.

Do you want government to stay out of peoples' religious practices if it means more young girls married off to old men and raped?

No, this is a strawman. Forcing someone into marriage is wrong at any age. Sex with children is a crime.

Isn't it sick that our troups were going to have that horrible "left behind" video game sent to them in a care charible care package--that's a videogame where the goal is to convert non-Christians or kill them! That's disturbing... and not talking about it or bringing our laws to bear on the topic allows the ugliness to fester.

Another straw man. Talking about it is likely what got the idea squelched.

If not "scrutinizing faith" means that kids are routinely told the earth was 6000 years old, then that is wrong and immoral, isn't it?

Wrong, yes. Immoral is overstating, I think. As long as this lie isn't being taught in public schools, I think it's between the parents and their children.

Where do you draw the line with what religions allow and how?

At the point children are physically harmed.

These institutions get huge tax breaks which means that tax payers pay for them.

No, it doesn't.

Can't we at least have a public mottos, proclaimations and discussions about the value of faith, feeling, beliefs, and religion versus facts, critical thinking, the good of the whole, and truth?

Isn't that what we're having here?

Neither Dawkins nor anyone else is advocating locking people in jail.

Qayak is advocating fines.

It's raising public awareness and responsibility to children that we are advocating.

Fine. That's what discussions like this do. Qayak has one viewpoint -- that teaching religion to one's children should be discouraged by the government. I have another viewpoint -- that the government should teach English, science, math skills, history, and critical thinking, and that standards should be in place so that children who are home-schooled get an adequate education in those areas as well. Beyond that, my reading of the first amendment is that the government should keep its hands off.

 

[Henners]

How does the false dichotomy of 'cared for'/'abused' enter into the picture?

Stories of heaven/hell are carrot and stick stories like almost all carrot and stick stories we tell children. Children in past were told that wolves would eat them if they entered the woods at night. Was that child abuse? Children may watch Freddy Kruger movies and lie awake at night fearing that something someone in their past did might impact their life. Is that abuse? We used to tell kids that if they sucked their thumbs a man with scissors would come and cut them off to keep their thumbs out of their mouths. If they lied awake at night considering the possibilities is that child abuse?

This whole idea is an abuse of the idea of child abuse. I would think that anyone who suffered actual abuse at the hands of all the sick bastards in this world would be disgusted by it.

Nice body-swerve.

Declaring something a false dichotomy does not make it so.

A real example of a false dichotomy would be classifying fear into two different types depending upon whether it is fear of God or of Freddy Kruger. (Mind you, there are real pictures of Freddy Kruger.)

So, well done.

Let's get this straight, you regard treating a child in such a way as to deprive them of sleep to be good and proper parental care.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[Kopji]

I have complex feelings about this.

What we traditionally describe as 'child abuse' is a serious social concern and to include a broad idea like 'religious upbringing' can blur a much needed focus.

I agree that it is not 'religious lies' that are the proper target. Atheists should promote an idea generally called 'transparency' or 'openness'. Karl Popper has written several books on this and refers often to what we need for an 'open society'. Even if children are raised in a harsh religious tradition, I do not see it as 'child abuse' unless it excludes or actively supresses openness and the freedom to experiment, question and seek answers based on observation and evidence.

A question I am probably 'too close' to, to answer very well is if there is a balance where religious upbringing can complement the kind of openness and freedom of thought that Popper describes. This would formulated as some kind of argument for belief, but I don't see it from where I am.

 

[bokonon]

Let's get this straight, you regard treating a child in such a way as to deprive them of sleep to be good and proper parental care.

Is that what you are saying?

It depends on the circumstances. If I wake them up in time to have a hot breakfast before they go to school, I'm depriving them of sleep. I consider that to be good and proper parental care.

If I keep them up all night because I'm drunk and shrieking at their mother and tossing the furniture around, I'm depriving them of sleep. I don't consider that to be good and proper parental care.

Someone who occasionally lays awake at night because his conscience is bothering him may or may not reflect good and proper parental care. Again, it depends on the circumstances.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Nice body-swerve.

Declaring something a false dichotomy does not make it so.

A real example of a false dichotomy would be classifying fear into two different types depending upon whether it is fear of God or of Freddy Kruger. (Mind you, there are real pictures of Freddy Kruger.)

So, well done.

Let's get this straight, you regard treating a child in such a way as to deprive them of sleep to be good and proper parental care.

Is that what you are saying?

Oh come on. The false dichotomy is between good and proper parental care and child abuse. There are many steps between those opposites. Some people yell at their kids in the supermarket. I don't think that is child abuse, but I certainly think it is bad parenting in most cases.

If I chastise my child because she tells a lie and she goes to her room and cries it out and doesn't sleep for two nights because she has lost my approval do you wish to call me a child abuser? My eldest, when we returned from a trip to Alaska this summer, had a meltdown because of the way I answered one of her questions. She was genuinely distressed and stalked off for almost an hour. Does that make me a child abuser? You seem to be focusing on the effects, the consequences. If the lie has no effect on the child in question, no untoward conequences, no sleepless nights, then is it not abuse?

In the example you have given a child is put out for a few nights because s/he fears that s/he has done something wrong. If the carrot and stick story helps him/her to a better moral outlook then, no, I would not call that child abuse. It is, in fact, good and proper parenting for many people. I don't approve of that style of parenting, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this constitutes child abuse.

As someone who regularly sees adults who were abused as children and now express that previous abuse in physical manifestations I am a bit disgusted that anyone would equate the teaching of religion, however stupid I may find the ideas, with real abuse of children.

 

[articulett]

The public does pay the taxes that religions don't pay on profit making ventures... and the public has a right to protect the children that are it's future. How are laws requiring bike helmets or seat belts different than ones requiring that you not threaten children with eternal torture or tell them scientific falsehoods disguised as truths that MUST be believed to be saved? Which cause more harm? Aren't the laws and fines more rarely enforced, but more about protecting children and educating parents. The same is true with vaccination laws. I think schools should be free to speak of religions as "beliefs" that people treat as "truths", but that are not validated by science. I think it's important for kids to know that people have been asserting these truths for eons and none of verifiable and there are many many different types. But mostly I think that anything that gets anyone to talk about what faith and religion is actually good for if anything and if any human really has access to divine truths is a very important topic.

I think that religions deserve no more protections than cults, racist practices, propaganda-- basic free inquiry. I think that children scared into trusting people who are lying and manipulating them is wrong and that a lot of ugliness hides underneath this "mustn't question faith" meme. I don't know if I'd advocate fines, but I really am interested in what those who hear gayak's suggestions as fascist are afraid of. You don't really think that parents will be jailed or put in leg irons do you? Do you expect the punishment to be worse than those who don't put their kids in car safety seats? Do you agree the government has a right to make laws about that? If you knew that much more religious suffering by children would happen due to your "let's not talk about it" approach, would you still be so appalled? Do children deserve to be protected from mental abuse? Is fining the fundies worse than the stupidity, bigotry, fear, and ignorance they inflict en masse on innocent children many of whom will grow up and inflict it en masse on others-- especially in a day and age when we can know real and valuable factual truths about so many things. Is it so wrong to mandate that beliefs be taught as beliefs--rather than higher truths.

Faith is not a good way to know the truth. Any way that message spreads is good as far as I'm concerned. Protecting religion from scrutiny because some are fine or cause no harm or whatever does not forward that goal. Do we let parents teach their kids to litter because the parents think it's fine? We have mottos ("give a hoot, don't pollute) and fines and education and assorted tools to help spread the message. I don't think Gayak or anyone else is calling for more than that, and I don't think anyone would be successful if they were anyhow. All civil rights are won with these sort of tools... and "freedom of religion" for children is one worth fighting for. Ask yourself this--are the laws regarding child safety seats worth the lesser freedom for parents? Are they a big imposition? To they help or harm society as a whole. Who pays and cares for injured and brain damaged kids when parents can't? When I hear the conversation, it sounds to me that gayak is talking about laws akin to safety seats or bike helmets for religious abuses and people are reacting as though he said imprison parents who take their kids to church. And I think they are doing this to avoid discussing whether religion should be given the same scrutiny as any other group or notions or dogmas that one might inflict upon children. We would probably all agree that it's wrong to raise your kids to be racists or bigots, but would we really demonize anyone who tried to brainstorm ways to stop such practices and educate the public? I wouldn't.

And how can you justify stepping in when physical harm is inflicted on a child if the parents believe their kids salvation depends on that harm. How can you say a blood transfusion is okay if it means that the kid and parents believe the kid will go to hell? How can you say the child rape is wrong when their god mandated it? How can you say exorcising kids is wrong when parents think it's the only way to cure their kids illness? Most people seem to give faith too much protection and freedom from scrutiny as far as I can tell. I was fined because my dogs got out and were running around the neighborhood. I think that causes a lot less harm then threatening kids with hell. But I agree that for the safety of the dogs and the community that such laws are beneficial to the society as a whole.

If religious protection laws were akin to child labor laws--which aren't really about physical abuse--but about adults taking advantage of those in their care, would you still have a problem with it? How are the two different. How and why should the laws protecting kids in these cases be different? Why do we have child labor laws?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

One deals with physical harm and the other with your opinion of mental harm. The government has a vested interest in protecting children from physical harm. I do not want them telling me or anyone else what stories I should or should not tell.

The government steps into the free speech issue when it may result in physical harm, not when it results in irritation, disgust, or offense.

I don't like the effects of religion in many situations either. But I will fight to protect other's right to practice their religion.

 

[Slimething]

Do you want an answer? As we've seen, it's doubtful the quote is accurate, but certainly George H.W. Bush does not have a high opinion of atheism. It's reasonable to assume his parents probably influenced him significantly in that regard.

What's your point?

Again, you must be joking. Whether or not you believe the statement was made, it was never denied despite repeated opportunities. One can only surmise that Elder Bush did not consider atheists citizens.

If I can refresh your memory, GHWB was the President of the United States. His first priority is to defend the Constitution of the United States. Leaving the First Amendment out of it wasn't mentioned in the deal. So, strictly speaking, his oath of office was falsified and invalid.

Let's get to brass tacks. It's more than likely that his parents inculcated him in this belief. Doing so did not benefit said child. Instead, the belief imbued him with a falsehood that would do him harm and do harm to virtually all Americans, except those of his particular credo. So, how is this not abuse of that thing that eventually became President...let alone the rest of us?

 

[Henners]

Oh come on. The false dichotomy is between good and proper parental care and child abuse. There are many steps between those opposites. Some people yell at their kids in the supermarket. I don't think that is child abuse, but I certainly think it is bad parenting in most cases.

If I chastise my child because she tells a lie and she goes to her room and cries it out and doesn't sleep for two nights because she has lost my approval do you wish to call me a child abuser? My eldest, when we returned from a trip to Alaska this summer, had a meltdown because of the way I answered one of her questions. She was genuinely distressed and stalked off for almost an hour. Does that make me a child abuser? You seem to be focusing on the effects, the consequences. If the lie has no effect on the child in question, no untoward conequences, no sleepless nights, then is it not abuse?

In the example you have given a child is put out for a few nights because s/he fears that s/he has done something wrong. If the carrot and stick story helps him/her to a better moral outlook then, no, I would not call that child abuse. It is, in fact, good and proper parenting for many people. I don't approve of that style of parenting, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this constitutes child abuse.

As someone who regularly sees adults who were abused as children and now express that previous abuse in physical manifestations I am a bit disgusted that anyone would equate the teaching of religion, however stupid I may find the ideas, with real abuse of children.

You can be disgusted as much as you like by my ideas of what constitutes child abuse, and you are very welcome to think that they are stupid if you like.

Would you care - at any point, in your own good time - to get around to answering the specific question that I asked, though, instead of risking vertigo on your high horse?

How many nights of deprived sleep would constitute child abuse?

I ask because I can give instances of people who were damaged through to adulthood by the religious-based fears instilled in them as little children.

That you have not come across such cases does not make them irrelevant. Indeed, it rather makes it look as though your whole argument is from ignorance.

Please put an upper limit on the number of nights that a child can lie awake for fear of dying in their sleep and going to hell, without that child being abused.

I'd really like to know.

For me, one night would be too many, and I regard anyone who thinks that even one night is acceptable to be a hearless, unfeeling and stupidly ignorant criminal who deserves to be locked up.

But, hell, that's just what I think.

 

[articulett]

One deals with physical harm and the other with your opinion of mental harm. The government has a vested interest in protecting children from physical harm. I do not want them telling me or anyone else what stories I should or should not tell.

The government steps into the free speech issue when it may result in physical harm, not when it results in irritation, disgust, or offense.

I don't like the effects of religion in many situations either. But I will fight to protect other's right to practice their religion.

What are laws regulating child labor for? Why couldn't there be similar laws guiding religious indoctrination? Are the restrictions on adults in charge really so much more important than the overall goal?

 

[articulett]

In the news story above--the FLDS children are told that Warren Jeffs is a prophet--god talks to him and tells them who must marry who and when and they must not defy god or there will be punishment... at present, the only prosecution or laws that figure in are "child rape"-- but it doesn't help the many who are already victimized nor does it help the many who believe that he is a prophet and controls their destiny...and it sure doesn't stop it from happening and multiplying in large ways as authoritarian religions tend to be good at.

If you protect the "faith is good" and "faith should be protected from scrutiny" meme-- you encourage the festering of cults like these for unspoken fears and unspoken rights of parents and authority figures. Is threatening kids with eternal torture a protected right of parents?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I don't like the effects of religion in many situations either. But I will fight to protect other's right to practice their religion.

What else will you fight for other's right to practice?

E.g, what about homeopathy?

How are these belief systems significantly different to religion?

Does the idea of homeopathy being banned make you feel the same as the idea of religious indoctrination of children being more heavily regulated?

If not, what's the difference for you?

 

[Meadmaker]

Again, you must be joking. Whether or not you believe the statement was made, it was never denied despite repeated opportunities. One can only surmise that Elder Bush did not consider atheists citizens.

I don't want a derail on the sidetrack. Read the links. If you find the topic interesting, start a new thread. Bottom line: I don't think he said it, and I do think he considered atheists citizens.

 

[articulett]

There is no evidence that anyone has divine truths. Children evolved to trust authority figures. There is no evidence of heaven and hell. Many people have been pass off assorted stories about what happens after you die for eons, but none are verifiable. These are facts that everyone should know and have a chance to hear. Those who say otherwise do not deserve special protection and those who state the above facts and spread it around are the real heroes. You protect the notion that "faith is good" when you protect religion and you silence those who would show others why that isn't so when you demonize those criticize indoctrination of children for some "nebulous higher good". I don't think the government really can control what people do, but there still are a lot of laws and regulations that are designed to protect children and society as a whole as well as to advance civilization and civil rights. If the government could control people, there'd be no pedophiles, gay people, need for helmet laws, drug addicts, tax cheats, war protesters-- but that doesn't mean that we don't talk things through and try to come up with solutions that are best for all people involved and it sure doesn't help when we have to consider the whims of assorted invisible immeasurable beings and possible afterlives.