Fundamentalism and Children

[Meadmaker]

Courts have removed children from parents who would not allow medical treatment so those parents were not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wanted.

I dare say you would find few people who would use the language in the way you are using it. When most people talk about "raising their children in a religion", they are referring to teaching that religion to their children. The Christian Scientist parents are free to tell their kids that it is sinful to take medicine, which is what most of us mean when we say that they are raising their kids in that religion. They aren't free to actually withold the medication, which is something else entirely.

Of course, you are free to use whatever definition you like. It appears that by "raising a child in a religion", you would include forcing the children into any acts that the religion might demand. Of course, if that's what you mean, then I don't know of anyplace in the world where parents have a legal right to raise their children in any religion they choose, and I would not wish them to have such a right.

 

[qayak]

Like Meadmaker, I would hate to live in a society where parents were not permitted to pass on their religious beliefs to their children. I hope it never happens here.

It couldn't happen soon enough for me.

I don't understand people who wish to desperately hold onto something that has caused so much misery throughout history.

In my opinion, there isn't much difference between the desire to preserve christianity, judaism, islam, or any other rerligion and wanting to preserve the bubonic plague, polio, or cancer.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have a question specifically for qayak, but anyone else feel free to chime in as well.

Could you give us an example of legislation you would support that would protect the victims of the sort of child abuse you have described?

It doesn't upset me all that much to hear people rant and rave about what a bad guy I am for bringing up a little Jew. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, after all. What I worry about is that there seem to be people who are actually sufficiently upset about it that they would use government power in opposition to my plans. Is this a groundless fear? Or are people really serious about protecting my son from my designs? And if so, what steps would you propose to implement your intentions?

 

[qayak]

I have a question specifically for qayak, but anyone else feel free to chime in as well.

Could you give us an example of legislation you would support that would protect the victims of the sort of child abuse you have described?

I would support pretty much any initiative.

What I worry about is that there seem to be people who are actually sufficiently upset about it that they would use government power in opposition to my plans.

Why would you worry about other people having a different opinion?

I would prefer that governments not have to take action. That religions and religious people realize the folly of teaching lies as truth to children . However, they seem to be incapable of it, so . . .

 

[Elind]

Beyond that, though, this talk of religious education as child abuse scares me. I would not want to live in a world where that view became mainstream.

The first time I saw religious "indoctrination" (education is far too flattering a term) called child abuse was reading Dawkins, and I hadn't quite thought of it that way before, in spite of being a long time atheist; which illustrates how we become set in social conventions that we take for granted. Speaking only for myself of course.

However it is a fact of our biology, nature and much more that breeding and child raising is something we evolved to do long before religion became defined as a concept. So, I would agree that whatever our personal views on the issue, that is not something we can or should legislate against without first changing our nature.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.

3- it is your right to assault your children.

On numerous occasions courts have told parents that they are not allowed to raise their children in any religion they wish.

I think this should be expanded to offer real freedom of religion by insisting children wait until they are old enough to make up their own minds.

We'll honestly I'm not saying I really endorse any of the positions I've stated, I'm just trying to stir the pot to see what people think about this complicated issue. Nice post.

LLH

 

[six7s]

What is the minimum a child must be taught?

Minimum: taught to think, critically

This optimises the maximum in all fields

Easier said than done of course, especially when the teacher (at school or home) doesn't have the skills themselves and/or the kids have been fooled into accepting that thinking and believing are synonymous

 

[six7s]

How are children supposed to make up their own minds about their faith if they are being force fed only one side of the argument from a young age?

If they are being force fed only one side of the argument, then the force-feeders either don't want or know how to facilitate children making up their own minds

It's not easy to provide balance... young kids need the security that comes with trusting that their parents know all the answers

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well think about it. If what you suggest is true, then:

1- it is your right to marry your underaged daughter off to men in their sixties.

2- it is your right to deny your gravely ill child life saving medical treatment.

This is a right in many places. I do remember reading that in california you have this right, but if you kill your kids with it, then you get charged with a crime.

 

[ponderingturtle]

1 - No. But it is your right to decide who minor daughter is allowed to see, when and where. You can, for example, insist on chaparoning your daughter on all her dates and never allowing her to be alone with a male. It's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

2 - No. If the medical condition is one where there is known treatment that has a high probability of success, parental refusal to consent can result in their losing custody. But parents can refuse generally accepted health care such as vaccinations if they choose. This is a really dicey area in our society right now, deciding when a course of treatment is necessary enough to justify taking custody away from parents. Again, it's reasonable to draw the line between what is permitted and what is not somewhere between those two situations.

You are speaking in far to general terms. Each state has different views on these events, and in some states they are allowed to varying degrees.

There is no general answer as to when children can legaly marry adults and what those getting married would need, and what medical treatment can by denied to children.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are speaking in far to general terms. Each state has different views on these events, and in some states they are allowed to varying degrees.

There is no general answer as to when children can legaly marry adults and what those getting married would need, and what medical treatment can by denied to children.

But there is a general answer as to how often children die in the United States as a result of withheld medical treatment. The answer is damned near never, and if it is discovered, every court in the land would immediately say that the treatment must be provided.

 

[qayak]

But there is a general answer as to how often children die in the United States as a result of withheld medical treatment. The answer is damned near never, and if it is discovered, every court in the land would immediately say that the treatment must be provided.

You have claimed that parents should be allowed to raise their children in any religion, some religions have these practices and the courts have ruled against the parents. So, what you are saying is that you disagree with the courts ruling and those parents should be allowed to let those children die?

Have you seen the video Jesus Camp? There are millions of children being indoctrinated like that all over the world. Your children may receive a far milder form of it but, in my view, if it takes legislation that completely denies you the right to teach your kid religion in order to stop the things that go on in that video, so be it.

The harm to your child caused by you not being allowed to teach them about god is, after all, zero. Your children would be free to jump in with both feet when they are mature enough to decide for themselves, along with eveery other kid in the world.

And that is the problem with moderates, they allow fundamentalists to hide behind freedom of religion as they deny that freedom to the most vulnerable members of society. If moderates actually had a moderating effect on religions, there would be no isssue. Unfortunately, when it comes to religions, moderates allow the growth of fundamentalists.

 

[mijopaalmc]

To the people who think religion is child abuse:

Is there any religion in which you think is appropriate to raise a child?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But there is a general answer as to how often children die in the United States as a result of withheld medical treatment. The answer is damned near never, and if it is discovered, every court in the land would immediately say that the treatment must be provided.

Prove it

There are American states in which Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists who kill their children by denying them lifesaving blood transfusions or other medical procedures can escape the consequences of their crime by pleading "freedom of religion." Currently, thirty-nine states' civil codes include religious exemptions from child abuse or neglect charges, while thirty-one allow a religious defense to a criminal charge.1 In a study of 172 child deaths where medical treatment was withheld on religious grounds, it was found that 140 children would have had at least a 90 percent likelihood of survival with medical care

Link

Sure now and then there have been cases and they have passed laws in some states makeing it a crime to let your child die like this, but that is not universal.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To the people who think religion is child abuse:

Is there any religion in which you think is appropriate to raise a child?

What does the philosophical positions of a religion do for a child? The socail structure of a religion is not nessacarily harmful, but when is theistic philosophical arguements and such beneficial?

 

[qayak]

To the people who think religion is child abuse:

Is there any religion in which you think is appropriate to raise a child?

Why would anyone want to bring a child up with lies and make believe stories when the truth is so much more interesting and empowering.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Why would anyone want to bring a child up with lies and make believe stories when the truth is so much more interesting and empowering.

And what lies would those be?

 

[tsg]

And what lies would those be?

It might be easier if you listed the religious beliefs that are true, if only because it would be much shorter.

 

[qayak]

And what lies would those be?

1- That believers are good, non-believers are bad and there is a sky jockey who favours the good and punishes the bad.

2- That all types of suffering on this Earth are the result of a kind and loving god, who we can never hope to understand, and that those who believe will have an eternal life, in a fictitious place, grovelling at the feet of this god.

3- That the bible is anything more than the ignorant beliefs of desert dwelling goat herders.

4- That it is a virtue to blindly believe in these lies.

5- That religious beliefs are an acceptable substitute for real knowledge.

Is that enough or should we ask others to add to the list?

 

[mijopaalmc]

1- That believers are good, non-believers are bad and there is a sky jockey who favours the good and punishes the bad.

2- That all types of suffering on this Earth are a result of a kind and loving god and that those who believe will have an eternal life, in a fictitious place, grovelling at the feet of this god.

3- That the bible is anything more than the ignorant beliefs of desert dwelling goat herders.

4- That it is a virtue to blindly believe in these lies.

5- That religious beliefs are an acceptable substitute for real knowledge.

Is that enough or should we ask others to add to the list?

Need I remind you that not all religions (nor all denominations within religions) believe these things?

What is it with the "religion is child abuse" crowd and gross generalizations?