Fundamentalism and Children

[tsg]

That's not what I said, and you know it. I asked what "religion is child abuse" means to when you here it said, regardless if you think that it's true.

Now, would you kindly answer the question?

No. I am not going to debate the color of red herrings. What I think "religion is child abuse" means is immaterial and an effort to dodge the issue.

Again, you must not be reading the same board I am. articulett and others have spent a vast amount of time patting each other on the back while they vituperate against religion. Now, I admit after the twentieth or thirtieth post of their anti-religion screed, I started to tune them out because I felt that while it might of some use to someone to make detailed distinctions between each of their positions, it was essentially splitting hairs.

Don't underestimate yourself. You tuned them out as soon as they said anything against religion. Waiting until the twentieth post would have required you to actually read what they said.

This is why I like to know what you think when they say that religion is child abuse because it would be nice to have a fresh perspective in what they think.

What I think they mean has nothing to do with the argument. Ask them what they mean.

Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed your hypocrisy of accusing atheists of painting religion with a broad brush while doing the very same thing yourself with "religion is child abuse" proponents.

 

[articulett]

I want to add, that I never officially said religion is child abuse... or if I did, it was taken out of context like it was with Dawkins... but I do feel all religions are lies dressed up as supposed "higher truths"... and I think it's sick to tell kids that their eternity depends on them believing the right unbelievable story and that doubting and dissent will lead to eternal damnation. I think it's also sick to encourage them to trust liars while ignoring scientists, evidence, and those who would tell them the truth and take great care and time showing them the amazing amount of evidence we have accumulated in the world.

I think the nutty meme that faith and "belief" make people good or righteous is VERY disturbing and untrue. The facts show that secular societies function better and as religiosity increases in various areas, so too does societal dysfunction--particularly the stuff religion tells us it prevents. Of course, religion is used to not being questioned or having to provide evidence for its claims. And non-believers are used to having everything they say judged as if it came from demons they don't believe in.

Religions, like the invisible gods they worship and the gurus that rake in the allegiance and cash, get the credit for stuff they never do and promises they cannot keep, while the mere mortals that plod through time actually changing the world with true and useful knowledge are demonized. You do not need religion to be moral or happy or please the invisible creator of the universe. People trust religion which promotes these lies. For that reason, it does not deserve my respect, and I think it's better not to inflict it on children as some "truth". They are beliefs-- just like the myths that came before. To proffer them as "higher truths" is abusive. Changing the topic to demonize those who speak these facts... while ignoring the facts themselves... is immoral in my book

 

[qayak]

My post here is kind of rambling. Get over it.

I was raised in a family that went to a church that taught all those things. Most of my extended family still does. I hated that church and left it the day I moved out of my parents house, but I fail to see how it qualifies as abuse. Explain, if you can, how this was abusive to me.

I have a friend who was molested by her father from the age of 11 - 15. She hated it and got out of it the day she moved out of her parent's home.

Does this also NOT qualify as abuse? Afterall, she doesn't see it as being abusive. Can you explain how it really was abusive to her?

Many children do not see the physical violence they suffered at the hands of their parents as abusive either. Are we to say that physical violence to children is okay as long as, in the future, they don't see it as abusive? How would we be able to tell which ones are going to see it as abusive so we know to charge their parents?

Does your belief that your indoctrination was not abuse mean that everyone else who suffers the same or worse, must see it the same way or can we assume that you are one of the ones that managed to overcome it while there are others who are unable to?

If a child is hit by a car and suffers a brain injury, is that injury any less of an issue just because that child managed to grow up and get a job or because it is hard to know what the real effect was? Perhaps that injury prevented the child from reaching their full potential. That is one of the big issues here. How much does religious indoctrination prevent a child from reaching their full potential. Admittedly, I don't know and I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to other people's lives, so I say religious indoctrination of any child is bad. However, you may feel that simple making it to adulthood with all the same fears, beliefs in lies and limitations that go along with the religion of your parent's, is good enough. But how do you know what that child's true potential is if it is stolen from them before they are 5 years old?

 

[articulett]

What horrible thing is going to happen because of the "religion is child abuse" meme? Are people going to (gasp) talk about it, instead of mindlessly just inflicting it on children because it's supposed to be good for something or necessary somehow or "just in case" they might suffer forever if one brand turns out to be "true"? If religion isn't abusive, it really has nothing to worry about from this meme, right? Or perhaps the faith promoters are afraid that those they have demonized because they believe differently (or--for shame--not at all) will come back and shine the light of judgment back on them revealing them for the naked emperor "man behind the curtain" that they are.

The meme I want to get rid of that rationalists are "bad people"-- I'm all for promoting an open public discussion and debate as to whether religion is child abuse and when do we get a right as a society who will be impacted by these children to speak up? I'm angry that there are laws that protect parents who deny medical treatment to children in the name of religion-- and I think filling their head with crap designed to "keep them from biting from the tree of knowledge" (i.e. learning facts) is clearly harmful, manipulative, and an abuse of fiduciary duty. It's on par with promoting racism and other kinds of bigotry and teaching kids the earth is flat and devils planted bones to fool people. Heck, let's tell them the mentally ill are possessed and secular society causes hurricanes and events like 9-11.

Beth and the other religious apologists are forever protect the big lie without ever discussing the fact that it is a lie or just how harmful it can be-- not just to the kids involved--but for the rest of us who have to share a planet with them. How many people can this planet support who think this world is a battleground for some unverifiable eternity?

And once you give up the right to not criticize one brand of fundamentalism in order for your preferred one not to undergo scrutiny, you give up the right to question them all--including the Madrases and other fundamentalist sects that teach their kids to fear and hate you. Faith is not a means to truth. It's a way of making trusting people into vessels of ready manipulation by whomever can convince them that they have "higher knowledge".

 

[Beth]

My post here is kind of rambling. Get over it.



I have a friend who was molested by her father from the age of 11 - 15. She hated it and got out of it the day she moved out of her parent's home.

Does this also NOT qualify as abuse? Afterall, she doesn't see it as being abusive. Can you explain how it really was abusive to her?

I'll let you answer my question first. If you can provide me a satisfactory explanation as to how my being raised in a fundamentalist church was abusive, I'll return the favor by providing an answer for a similar question regarding sexual abuse. If you aren't willing to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

Many children do not see the physical violence they suffered at the hands of their parents as abusive either. Are we to say that physical violence to children is okay as long as, in the future, they don't see it as abusive? How would we be able to tell which ones are going to see it as abusive so we know to charge their parents?

Again, I'll let you answer my question first.

Does your belief that your indoctrination was not abuse mean that everyone else who suffers the same or worse, must see it the same way

No.

or can we assume that you are one of the ones that managed to overcome it while there are others who are unable to?

No. First you need to estalish that such indoctrination is abusive.

If a child is hit by a car and suffers a brain injury, is that injury any less of an issue just because that child managed to grow up and get a job or because it is hard to know what the real effect was?

Yes, it's less of an issue than an injury that prevents the child from growing up or being able to get a job. If the driver's insurance must provide compensation for the injury, it certainly affects the amount of compensation.

Perhaps that injury prevented the child from reaching their full potential. That is one of the big issues here. How much does religious indoctrination prevent a child from reaching their full potential. Admittedly, I don't know and I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to other people's lives, so I say religious indoctrination of any child is bad. However, you may feel that simple making it to adulthood with all the same fears, beliefs in lies and limitations that go along with the religion of your parent's, is good enough. But how do you know what that child's true potential is if it is stolen from them before they are 5 years old?

You could make the same argument in regards to parents who allow their children to grow up eating junk food and never exercising. The consequences of poor diet and inadequate exercise are much better documented than those of religious indoctrination and will certainly interfer with them achieving their true potential and could be charactorized as stealing years from their lives. But most people see government restrictions in those areas as unnecessarily intrusive and causing far more harm than they would mitigate.

The problem with 'erring on the side of caution' when you are dealing with the child/parent relationship is that it is interpreted as sactioning governmental interference in the child/parent relationship (which is what you are advocating with legislation) without any regard to the damage that is done by the interference itself. I see such interference as very damaging, not only to the family and the parent/child relationship, but also to the precepts of freedom the U.S. is founded upon. There are cases where interference is sadly justified, but I don't think it is justifiable when it being advocated for such vague and poorly defined harm as not being able to reach their full potential.

So explain, if you can, how a religous upbringing, which included ALL the elements you listed and object to, was abusive to me.

 

[slingblade]

No offense taken. I seriously thought everyone would agree with that statement. Do you believe there are SHOULD be any minimum standards of education for children? How about reading/writing? Or even the ability to speak? The tying of shoes? How to dress yourself? How to use the bathroom? Anything?

LLH

I'm still reading the thread, but I wanted to jump in here.

There ARE minimum standards in the U.S. in education. Each state has its own Standards (yes, with a capital S), and each teacher is required to follow those standards.

Lesson plans must be written which enumerate the standards covered in the lesson. If students are not performing well, an administrator can then look at the plans taught and make sure standards are being followed.

In the U.S. (and I'm aware you're probably being facetious), public school teachers generally do not teach their students how to dress or defecate.

 

[qayak]

Well, I think in the unanswered question department, I have better grounds to demand answers before providing my own than any of the apologists in this thread. But, because I am being honest and trying to understand your point, I will answer yours first although few if any of mine have ever been addressed.

So explain, if you can, how a religous upbringing, which included ALL the elements you listed and object to, was abusive to me.

I can't because I don't read minds but I can tell you how it was abusive to my neighbour across the street.

It decided who she would marry.

It prevented her from going past highschool, in fact, it encouraged her to drop out, get married and have kids.

It prevented her from leaving an abusive marriage. ETA: It was also the justification fo rthe abuse.

It decided what, as a girl, she was allowed to do and say.

It took her years to undo the damage and she is still in therapy for it. She is 46.

The friend of mine, who was sexually abused, didn't suffer this much.

However, what decided it for me was the answer to a simple question: Would you raise your children in the same environment? Both my friends say "No f'ing way!" and without having experienced either form of abuse, I can see why.

So, you may have to establish whether it was child abuse but that has been established for me. It fits the definition.

I do not question your right to not view your upbringing as abusive. I just object to your opinion that your view is the only one allowed by those who went through the same or worse. Your argument relies on the either or fallacy. It is groundless.

 

[slingblade]

I'll let you answer my question first. If you can provide me a satisfactory explanation as to how my being raised in a fundamentalist church was abusive, I'll return the favor by providing an answer for a similar question regarding sexual abuse. If you aren't willing to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?
Again, I'll let you answer my question first.
No. No. First you need to estalish that such indoctrination is abusive.

It can be. It was to me. But we are individual examples.

You provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing isn't necessarily harmful.

I provide anecdotal evidence that such an upbringing can be very harmful.

The truth lies in there somewhere. There are probably many truths. As many as there are individuals and upbringings.

 

[articulett]

It made Beth into an apologist with a double standard she is not able to see, and a brain that bypasses pertinent questions...

 

[bokonon]

What horrible thing is going to happen because of the "religion is child abuse" meme? Are people going to (gasp) talk about it, instead of mindlessly just inflicting it on children because it's supposed to be good for something or necessary somehow or "just in case" they might suffer forever if one brand turns out to be "true"? If religion isn't abusive, it really has nothing to worry about from this meme, right?

What good do you think can come from it? Virtually every religious person is going to dismiss it immediately as irrational hyperbole, and many non-religious people (myself included) will see it the same way. Unless you can make a strong case for denying parents the right to share the truth as they see it with their children, it just comes across as an unfounded appeal to emotion. It doesn't even work as a slogan for a bumper sticker.

OF COURSE religious parents are going to mindlessly express their beliefs to their children. Except for the growing group that home-schools out of fear that their children will be exposed to alternative beliefs, parents are not the only source of ideas. I consider it my duty to keep the ideas I express rational, so that those who value reason will consider them. While it may be possible to reach the children of fundamentalists by other means, I don't think the cause of reason is helped by irrational claims.

The meme I want to get rid of that rationalists are "bad people"-- I'm all for promoting and open public discussion and debate as to whether religion is child abuse and when do we get a right as a society who will be impacted by these children to speak up?

Everyone has the right to speak up, but I don't think the public image of rationalists is enhanced by shrill slogans.

I think filling [children's heads] with crap designed to "keep them from biting from the tree of knowledge" (i.e. learning facts) is clearly harmful, manipulative, and an abuse of fiduciary duty.

One can advocate critical thinking without demonising parents who are trying to do what they honestly see as best for their children.

It's on par with promoting racism and other kinds of bigotry and teaching kids the earth is flat and devils planted bones to fool people.

All of which are perfectly legal, and best countered by calmly, rationally, and persistently presenting an alternative viewpoint, buttressed by the best facts available.

Beth and the other religious apologists are forever protect the big lie without ever discussing the fact that it is a lie or just how harmful it can be-- not just to the kids involved--but for the rest of us who have to share a planet with them.

I don't think the best way to fight a big lie is with a little lie of your own.

I'm not happy that so many of my fellow Americans hold nutty beliefs, but I don't think society is in imminent danger of collapse because of them. To paraphrase Jefferson, if someone wants to believe Elvis is alive, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. I'd prefer it if everyone sensibly believed everything I believed, but I don't think the best way to convince them is to pass a law declaring that henceforth MY truth is the only one that can be taught.

So far, we've been able to keep Intelligent Design out of the public school classroom, even in Kansas. That was done by presenting rational arguments, not by recklessly throwing labels around in the hope that they'd make people think.

 

[qayak]

I'm still reading the thread, but I wanted to jump in here.

There ARE minimum standards in the U.S. in education. Each state has its own Standards (yes, with a capital S), and each teacher is required to follow those standards.

Lesson plans must be written which enumerate the standards covered in the lesson. If students are not performing well, an administrator can then look at the plans taught and make sure standards are being followed.

In the U.S. (and I'm aware you're probably being facetious), public school teachers generally do not teach their students how to dress or defecate.

Well, I have a friend who teaches primary grades but she refuses to teach kindergarten anymore. The reason? Many of the kids who come into kindergarten are not toilet trained and still go in their pants. Not the first day because they are nervous but everyday because they have not been taught better.

Toilet training is actually a pre-req. to kindergarten along with dressing and shoe tying, but because of parental demands, all are overlooked. Apparently Little Johnny doesn't know enough to not soil his undies but he is ready for higher mathematics.

Of course, this is Canada, your mileage may vary.

 

[slingblade]

Which is why I said "generally." There will be exceptions.

Here in the U.S., if toilet training is a pre-req for kindergarten, your child would not be admitted until he or she had fulfilled the pre-req. That's why it's called pre-requirement. I've heard, from elementary teaching students, of kids who were sent home and not permitted to come back until the Pampers and Pull-Ups were g.o.n.e.

Also, there are special ed (Sped) students who will never be able to toilet themselves, and the teacher/aide has to take care of that task.

So, generally.

 

[bokonon]

I can tell you how it was abusive to my neighbour across the street.

It decided who she would marry.

It prevented her from going past highschool, in fact, it encouraged her to drop out, get married and have kids.

It prevented her from leaving an abusive marriage.

It decided what, as a girl, she was allowed to do and say.

It took her years to undo the damage and she is still in therapy for it. She is 46.

I don't have a problem with statements like "Forcing a woman to marry someone against her will is abusive," or "Forcing a girl to drop out of high school, get married, and have kids is abusive."

Many fundamentalists do not exert such pressures, and many non-religious forms of culture do. I'd prefer to oppose the abusive practices themselves rather than condemning religion as though the one was the equivalent of the other.

 

[articulett]

Bokonen, I teach evolution, and I have to deal with quite a few children who believe that "science doesn't know anything". I'm not out spreading the religion is child abuse meme... I'm really ranting about the fact that anytime anyone suggests (on a skeptics forum mind you) that religion is bad for kids-- the apologists come out and start accusing such people as spreading the "religion is child abuse" meme. It was originally an extrapolation on Dawkins contention that it's weird to label kids by their parents religion... and that threatening kids with hell is abusive. There are things that are very abusive about religion, and it isn't true. I expect we should at least be able to talk about them on a skeptics forum without attack. Moreover, no matter what approach is taken in the public or the media... I don't think silence and walking on eggshells so as not to offend and making the subject "taboo" does much good at all-- it allows people to inflict damage without thinking--or worse, thinking that they are doing something great.

I like these guys: http://www.youtube.com/user/RationalResponse

I am quite sure that any approach I choose except "nothing" will be criticized--even just discussing my views on a skeptic forum. I'm used to that. I think everyone who dares to criticizes religion must be.

I think all approaches are worthwhile

 

[articulett]

I don't have a problem with statements like "Forcing a woman to marry someone against her will is abusive," or "Forcing a girl to drop out of high school, get married, and have kids is abusive."

Many fundamentalists do not exert such pressures, and many non-religious forms of culture do. I'd prefer to oppose the abusive practices themselves rather than condemning religion as though the one was the equivalent of the other.

What about telling people they are "saved" and better for believing the right unbelievable story and that others are damned for teaching evolution or being gay or not believing the right unbelievable story?

Sure, not all religions or religious people or practices are equally bad-- but faith has never been a good way to know anything true and many people think it's a requirement for morality. I don't care whether religion is or isn't child abuse or what peoples' opinions are on the subject anymore than they care about mine. I am just tired of the silencing of those who mention it's harms-- as though they want to chop of the heads of all those who indoctrinate kids while completely avoiding the real people doing the real harms mentioned in the OP.

 

[articulett]

Just because people criticize religion or faith it does not mean they are saying all faiths are equally bad or harmful... anymore than defending faith does not mean defending all faiths equally. We should have to use special language to avoid hurting feelings on a skeptics forum... and it does get tiresome that every time any creationist abuse is mentioned the "you can't say religion IS child abuse" people derail the thread, ignore the OP and demonize those who bring religion's abuses to the table for discussion.

 

[qayak]

I'd prefer to oppose the abusive practices themselves rather than condemning religion as though the one was the equivalent of the other.

Religions are the sum total of their abuses, nothing more.

(Unless someone can come up with that list of truths that religions teach like TSG has been asking for and I have been echoing.)

 

[qayak]

Just because people criticize religion or faith it does not mean they are saying all faiths are equally bad or harmful... anymore than defending faith does not mean defending all faiths equally. We should have to use special language to avoid hurting feelings on a skeptics forum... and it does get tiresome that every time any creationist abuse is mentioned the "you can't say religion IS child abuse" people derail the thread, ignore the OP and demonize those who bring religion's abuses to the table for discussion.

The other point is that for these people to admit their upbringing was abusive means they are critisizing their own parents. Most people are justifiably reluctant to do that.

However, like you say, that doesn't make the issue go away.

 

[Meadmaker]

This analogy is screwy unless you believe that children are too immature and irresponsible to THINK.

There's another way of looking at this, and it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. I believe that they are indeed capable of thinking. Therefore, I believe that I can tell them to pray, but I cannot force them to believe the prayers.

If ineed they are sufficiently mature and responsible to THINK, then there really isn't any danger in sending them to Jesus Camp, much less to my son's parochial school. My kid seems to be coming along quite well in the thinking department, as are the graduates of the school to which I spoke before sending him there.

 

[articulett]

Can we discuss the OP and whether there are benefits in general from religions in general that warrant us walking on eggshells to protect the feelings of those who might be offended that outweigh the harms in general?

Is it good to tell kids that faith is a good way to know stuff and then dump a bunch of faith based BS in their heads? I think the OP had a good point. No matter what the method, protecting religion from scrutiny, discussion, or hurt feelings isn't likely to do anything-- nor is telling those on a skeptics forum that they aren't helping "the cause". What is "the cause", and how do those where is the evidence that the method of those urging for different behavior helps this cause.

I think there are lots of avenues for reaching people. I think Discouraging or vilifying dissenters doesn't work to further the spread of discussion, truth, and critical thinking. If the apologists don't like what I say, they are free to mock me; I plan to do the same... the silence/deference thing hasn't worked.