Fundamentalism and Children

[Beth]

Okay, now you are being realistic. It is abusive for someone in authority to lie to their charges. It is more abusive to hold those lies up as truth while you systematically tell them that the truth is a lie.

Okay. So you are saying the reason that parents teaching their children their religion is abusive even when the 'victims' don't perceive it as abuse is because it’s a lie. This is a pretty weak argument for advocating making parents teaching religion to their children illegal. Further, when you move away from the fundamentalist, literal interpretations of their holy book, it’s pretty hard to make the case that the parents are lying to their children because they aren't making claims that can be falsified.

Now, I said I would in return provide some reasons why incest can be considered abusive even if the victim doesn’t perceive it that way. So here are three excerpts from abstracts on the issue of the effects of childhood sexual abuse:

From the abstract for “The Relationships between Childhood Sexual Abuse, Social Anxiety, and Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Women” by Feerick, Margaret M.; Snow, Kyle L. with National Instit Child Health & Human Development, National Instit Health, Bethesda, MD published in Journal of Family Violence, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 409-419, Dec 2005:

Women with a history of sexual abuse reported more symptoms of anxiety, distress in social situations, & posttraumatic stress disorder than other women. Women who experienced attempted or actual intercourse reported more avoidance than women with no history of abuse & women with exposure only, & more PTSD symptoms than all other groups of women. Women who experienced fondling reported more PTSD symptoms than women with no history of abuse.

From the abstract for “Shame, Humiliation, and Childhood Sexual Abuse: Distinct Contributions and Emotional Coherence” by Negrao, Claudio II; Bonanno, George A.; Noll, Jennie G.; Putnam, Frank W.; Trickett, Penelope K. with Hispanic Counseling Center, New Britain General Hospital, CT published Child Maltreatment, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 350-363, Nov 2005

Childhood sexual abuse (CSA) may produce powerful & enduring emotion reactions, including intense shame, anger, & humiliation. Whereas shame & anger have received considerable interest from researchers, less attention has been paid to humiliation or associated coherence among these emotions as it relates to the psychological adjustment in CSA survivors. In the current investigation, the authors coded shame, anger, & humiliation from narrative transcripts of CSA survivors as they either voluntarily disclosed an abuse experience or described a distressing nonabuse experience & from nonabused individuals as they described a distressing experience. Verbal humiliation was found to be significantly associated with nonverbal displays of shame. Coherence between verbal humiliation & facial shame among CSA nondisclosers was associated with increased symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

From the abstract for “The Developmental Consequences of the Maltreatment of Girls” by Smith, Carolyn A. ; Ireland, Timothy O. with School Social Welfare, U Albany published in Criminologie, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 67-102, spring 200:

We find that experiencing substantiated maltreatment increases the risk of most outcomes at the bivariate level. Employing logistic regression, maltreatment increases the odds of several negative consequences after controlling for confounding sociodemographic variables including poverty, family structure, parental education, race/ethnicity, & adolescent delinquency. Results also suggest that sex abuse may be particularly problematic for these young women in emerging adulthood.

I’m only quoting 3, but there is a plethora of well documented adverse outcomes as a result of childhood sexual abuse and hundreds, if not thousands of peer-reviewed articles describing the abuse, the effects, and the best ways to treat people for it.

Incest is illegal in all 50 states and a parent who sexually abuses their child can be charged with a crime and lose custody of that child. Now, you’re suggesting we attempt a similar approach for dealing with parents who lie to their children without any of the rigorous scientific work needed to provide the supporting evidence that lying to children causes the same level of problems that sexual abuse does.

You haven't made a very convincing argument in my opinion. Where are the studies that show how often a religious upbringing results in adverse outcomes? What adverse outcomes can be expected? How severe are they? You have provided no evidence of damage from the teaching of religious beliefs beyond a single anecdote (and that only implies a correlation at best) and the argument that when teaching religion to children, they are being taught lies as if that automatically constituted abuse.

Now, you and others have claimed that children will eventually learn the truth and be none the worse for wear.

No. I have claimed that the harm they may suffer from being taught religious beliefs is not sufficient to be called abusive and is not justification for governmental attempts to prevent it. I consider the solution to be significantly worse than the problem in this case.

You have also claimed that the people spreading the lies aren't really lying because they believe it is the truth.

Yes. In my opinion a lie is a deliberate deception by the speaker.

These two statements contradict each other. If the adults teaching the lies can't tell they are lies, how do you expect children to?

Yes, those statements do but you were incorrect about my position regarding the first statement. There is no contradiction in what I was actually saying.

 

[Beth]

But it's okay for children to be lead to believe anecdote = absolute truth?

Not what I said. I don't consider 'not okay' = 'abusive'. While anything abusive is certainly not okay, there's an awful lot of terrority that falls under the 'not okay' banner that doesn't make it to 'abusive'. Unless you want to claim that everything a parent does that is not okay is automaticallyl abusive, your statement doesn't follow from mine at all.

I was just pointing out that those who believe accept anecdote from one source (religion/woo) and not from another (anyone criticizing religion/woo, particularly their own), not that sceptics should use them.

Would you care to explain what anecdotal evidence I'm accepting from religion? I'm an agnostic remember.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not what I said. I don't consider 'not okay' = 'abusive'. While anything abusive is certainly not okay, there's an awful lot of terrority that falls under the 'not okay' banner that doesn't make it to 'abusive'. Unless you want to claim that everything a parent does that is not okay is automaticallyl abusive, your statement doesn't follow from mine at all.

I claim that everything a parent does that is 'not okay' is automatically abusive. However, there are levels of abuse, usually graded on the functional impact they have on the child, either psychologically or physically.

Would you care to explain what anecdotal evidence I'm accepting from religion? I'm an agnostic remember.

Well the comment would not apply to you then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which is why you read about it all the time. A kid dies, and the parents say, "Sure, medicine could have saved her, but it was God's will that she die. What good would it be to let them live if it makes God angry?" You hear it again and again and again. Day after day. For example, there was that case.....uh....well, I don't remember exactly, but it happens all the time.

So a strawman that it would have to be well reported is your proof? You are slipping. Does it happen very often, no, but are there many cases where it did happen and did not get the press you seem to think it would? Yep.

It referenced over a hundred cases in the link I provided.

 

[Slimething]

Yes, the law does not protect their minds. However, the law protects their bodies. ...
Indeed, I would take up arms against any government that tried to stop you.

Meadmaker, you make excellent points about government intervention against what some of us see as woo indoctriation of captive young. However, I have not seen anyone propose legal/governmental action against this practice. The best approach is always to educate and to move society as a whole to a new level of function. I can't speak for everyone but I see this as a social battle, not a legislative one.

 

[Meadmaker]

However, I have not seen anyone propose legal/governmental action against this practice.

I asked qayak what sort of government initiative he would support, and he said he would support any initiative.

Any politician today who actually proposed such an initiative would be drummed out of office at the first opportunity. I just want to keep it that way.

 

[Meadmaker]

So a strawman that it would have to be well reported is your proof? You are slipping. Does it happen very often, no, but are there many cases where it did happen and did not get the press you seem to think it would? Yep.

It referenced over a hundred cases in the link I provided.

I think the strawman here is that some wacky weirdos who do some strange thing have anything to do with mainstream religion. I understand that some strange guy did something stupid and said God told him to do it, but I don't see why that makes whatever it is that they do at the United Church of Christ "child abuse".

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay. So you are saying the reason that parents teaching their children their religion is abusive even when the 'victims' don't perceive it as abuse is because it’s a lie. This is a pretty weak argument for advocating making parents teaching religion to their children illegal. Further, when you move away from the fundamentalist, literal interpretations of their holy book, it’s pretty hard to make the case that the parents are lying to their children because they aren't making claims that can be falsified.

To amplify on this point, I think it's important to understand that what actually gets taught in churches and synagogues often bears little resemblance to what is discussed in this forum. This is especially true for the more liberal branches of various sects, such as Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ or Unity Church, etc.

If you actually were to go to a synagogue and hear a real sermon, or to a Unity church and hear a real sermon, the vast majority of what they say would be a combination of pop psychology and social commentary, and almost everyone would agree with almost all of it. Oh, yeah, they might throw in some stuff about God, too. Whatever.

 

[fagin]

Sometimes you just have to be pragmatic. I recently moved to the UK from New Zealand with a son about to enter high school. As a result of the move (not my choice - personal reasons) I am relatively poor, trying to support myself as well as my ex (evil) and son. So can't afford private school.
I have bent over backwards to get my son into one of the top 5 government schools in England (renting a house outside the school gates helped.)
The school is magnificent compared to the average: (average approx in brackets)

Total size - 500 (1700)
Class size - 18 (30+)
GCSE a-c pass - 100% (75% or less)

In addition the facilities are excellent, and the basics are stressed - multiplication tables etc (a bit sad to do this in high school but better than not at all), sport is competitive, and kids have to behave themselves - that is clearly made the parents resposibility. Quite old fashioned but it seems to work, the kids there seem happy and the school gets results.
And very very difficult to get into.

The downside - religion plays a part - chapel each morning etc.

I hate the word atheist - why should I define myself by what I don't believe? (Would you call yourself a non paedophile? - why?)
When asked I just tell people that whilst I may enjoy reading fairy stories I don't believe in them.

Apologies for all the words but to get to my point.
Morally these are decent people, my son will get a good education but his head will also be filled with rubbish, but that at least we can discuss and hopefully I can be a really bad influence and make sure he doesn't get brainwashed.

I don't feel like I've sold out or anything by sending him to this school, even if I disagree with some of the teachings. Just a pity it has come to this.

 

[Slimething]

I asked qayak what sort of government initiative he would support, and he said he would support any initiative.

Any politician today who actually proposed such an initiative would be drummed out of office at the first opportunity. I just want to keep it that way.

That second paragraph is not true, Meadmaker, much as I would like to see it too. There are plenty of politicians who want to indoctrinate children in the public school system and they're still in office. As a matter of fact, proposing something like this is pretty much a rite of passage for politicians from certain sectors of the USA. There is a fair sector of the population who wants to "bring god back into the government".

So, I would agree with qayak's position as a firm way of saying "suck it, jesus" to those people.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think the strawman here is that some wacky weirdos who do some strange thing have anything to do with mainstream religion. I understand that some strange guy did something stupid and said God told him to do it, but I don't see why that makes whatever it is that they do at the United Church of Christ "child abuse".

So you do not need to make correct statements to prove that religion is not child abuse?

You are not supporting your case with anything other than the very poor argument "I do not hear about X so it must not be happening", isn't that an argument from ignorance?

Now as to how much damage being done by religions decrying medicine, well in this country it would seem to be minimal, as I have found claims of less than 200 children dieing over a relatively long period of time, with only a few deaths per year.

So it is not a massive problem, but just because it is not well reported doesn't mean it does not happen.

 

[slingblade]

What if it's all tangled up together? I know that for the sake of discussion we often take on one issue at a time, but what if you were being brainwashed by the church at the same time you were being sexually abused? Yeah, yeah, the altar-boy/priest thing qualifies, but what about other types?

Suppose you were in a church, or a churchy social system that, while preparing you for adolescence, drummed into your head that sex outside marriage was wrong, evil, dirty, and that you'd go to hell for even thinking about it.

And during the years they're telling you this, several men have been fondling you, performing oral sex on you, grooming you for penetration, and expecting you to reciprocate? So, you don't tell anybody, because you're convinced you're wrong, evil, and dirty and going to hell?

What kind of messed-up adult do you get to become?





(I'm on display Saturday and Sunday evenings, with a matinee on Wednesdays, if anyone wants to see.)

 

[qayak]

Okay. So you are saying the reason that parents teaching their children their religion is abusive even when the 'victims' don't perceive it as abuse is because it’s a lie. This is a pretty weak argument for advocating making parents teaching religion to their children illegal. Further, when you move away from the fundamentalist, literal interpretations of their holy book, it’s pretty hard to make the case that the parents are lying to their children because they aren't making claims that can be falsified.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing39.html

Scheflin cites studies in the '50s at Yale that showed people would ignore clear-cut fact to conform to a group lie and '70s studies proving how easy it is to manipulate people with authoritative commands. "We know that people can be influenced, we know they can be unduly influenced, we know they can be unduly indoctrinated," says Scheflin. "What's the problem?"

Rutgers University sociologist Benjamin Zablocki complains that the cult/religious group litigations stopped further scientific inquiry into brainwashing at a time when it might have shed light on the mental state of terrorists. Court cases require black-and-white thinking, either/or analysis, he says, while "scientists are supposed to try to get to the truth by seeing all the nuances and complexities of what actually goes on."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html

Conclusions

The preceding literature review suggests that most of the nationally known LGATs and a burgeoning, but as yet undetermined number, of take-offs on them are using powerful psychological techniques capable of stripping individuals of their psychological defenses, inducing behavioral regression, and promoting regressive modes of reasoning.

 

[Beth]

http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing39.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html

Conclusions

These links are about brainwashing techniques used by, among others, religious cults. They even define religious cults so as not to confuse them with normal accepted religions. Thus, these links are not evidence of harm to children caused by a religious upbringing. Would you like to try again?

 

[Slimething]

These links are about brainwashing techniques used by, among others, religious cults. They even define religious cults so as not to confuse them with normal accepted religions. Thus, these links are not evidence of harm to children caused by a religious upbringing.

No. Read the articles carefully. They try to define cults in such a way as to exclude older religions but even they admit that their efforts are not 100% efficient. Would you care to try again?

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. Read the articles carefully. They try to define cults in such a way as to exclude older religions but even they admit that their efforts are not 100% efficient. Would you care to try again?

Also the best definition of cult vs religion that I have heard has nothing to do with being mainstream. A cult in centered on an individual leader, and a religion is an institution.

So the FLDS church might well not rate as a cult.

In general use cult is just a religion that the person does not like, it is the religious version of pervert.

 

[Beth]

Also the best definition of cult vs religion that I have heard has nothing to do with being mainstream. A cult in centered on an individual leader, and a religion is an institution.

Yes, they discuss different definitions and this is the one they specify the one they are using for this report - the totalist type cult:

Cult (totalist type): a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative (i.e., deceptive and indirect) techniques of persuasion and control designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community. Unethically manipulative techniques include isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.

Further, they indicate that they are NOT referring to typical practices in regard to a parent raising their child to follow the same faith they do:

How much of the harm associated with cults is causally related to group practices? Why, for instance, should one consider "child abuse and cults" a meaningful topic of study, but not "child abuse and Methodists" or "child abuse and sociologists"? Many would answer that cults, unlike Methodists or sociologists, tend to be very controlling and characteristically use disturbingly subtle manipulations: deliberate attempts to manipulate someone else's behavior seem exploitative when they are covert.

So the links gayak provided do not give any evidence to support the contention that indoctrination into the parent's religion is a form of child abuse. At least, not without demonstrating that mainstream religions meet the definition given above for a totalist type cult. I will agree that some fundamentalist churches would meet this definition of a cult, but such churches are not representative of mainstream religion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So the links gayak provided do not give any evidence to support the contention that indoctrination into the parent's religion is a form of child abuse. At least, not without demonstrating that mainstream religions meet the definition given above for a totalist type cult. I will agree that some fundamentalist churches would meet this definition of a cult, but such churches are not representative of mainstream religion.

What is mainstream? I remember seeing how Huntster took to heart a great deal of the crap spewed out by the catholic church, and that would seem to be mainstream.

 

[Beth]

What is mainstream? I remember seeing how Huntster took to heart a great deal of the crap spewed out by the catholic church, and that would seem to be mainstream.

I think churches like Fred Phelp's and David Koresh's meet the definition of cult. The Catholic church does not.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think churches like Fred Phelp's and David Koresh's meet the definition of cult. The Catholic church does not.

Then are you claiming that the catholic church does not harm many people(leaving asside church sex abuse scandals for now).

If it is main stream it should be harmless right?