Religious instruction is child abuse

[Democracy Simulator]

I think creating space for self reflection, loving other people, and being caring and giving is great! It is not a waste of time.

Of course, I didn't say that it was.

Why do you appear to believe that in order to do these good things you must believe in supernatural beings and fairy tales?

Why do you appear to need the promise of reward and the threat of punishment to do these good things?

Why don't you enjoy them and practice them because of what they give you and how they make you feel without the charade of religion?

Are you unaware that there are other, better ways of living?

Do what you will, but please don't pretend that one must be religious to self-reflect, love other people, care, and give.

That they create the space and time (and pass the plate) may be making it too easy for you to remain stuck in their way of being rather than looking around and finding a better way.

Well, I don't believe that you have to believe in supernatural beings to do good things. Neither do I need the promise of reward or the threat of punishment to do good things myself.

Other, better ways of living? How do we decide this if we already have different criteria? I was an Atheist and an Agnostic for over 30 years. It's not as if I didn't try any alternatives.

In my previous post, I already made it explicit that one does not need to be religious to self reflect, love and care etc. ('Now let me be clear, etc.') It has helped me to do those things, which was the scope of my point. i.e. it is not time wasted.

 

[The True Scotsman]

I agree on this note. However, what if the official advocates enforcing a literal interpretation of his/her holy book? For example, an islamic politician saying that everyone who leaves the islamic faith should be sentenced to death?

Now, in an ideal world he should be allowed to say so and it wouldn't matter because he is just one nut and nobody would listen to him. However, in reality people do listen to him and are probably more likely to listen to him than to a more softspoken official because people are wired that way. Of course the problem is that the guy was appointed (directly or indirectly) by the public in the first place.

Which brings me to the problem with the democratic system. How can you expect people to vote rationally when they have an inherent tendency towards delusion which can so easily be taken advantage of? Don't get me wrong, the democratic system is still the best we have, but the problem remains.

That's why the best solution I could think of is to try to prevent politicians from openly ranting about religion and using that to influence people, so that people at least get a chance to think rationally.

But I'll submit that it's not a perfect solution.

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.

 

[applecorped]

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.

Thinking is fun!

 

[Complexity]

Is this thread just here to satisfy Complexity's boredom? Make an inflammatory statement that includes the comparison of religious teachings equalling the worst disease there is, and then slowly backing away from this as the thread progresses?

I haven't been bored in years.

I made an inflammatory statement because I thought it needed to be said (again).

I continue to stand by what I said. Far too many people are inclined to politely overlook what is done to children in the name of 'god'.

I haven't slowly backed away from the position that I took in the OP - I've clarified things so that you realize that I didn't say what you thought I said.

I sense so much anger with you, Complexity. You seem to genuinely hate religious people. If you had kids, (my understanding is you don't) then you might understand this differently. Kids need direction. Parents should provide direction for them. Religious people think they're doing the best for their kids, period. Not to piss you off.

I'm furious.

I don't hate religous people, not in the least.

I hate much of what religious people do.

I hate that there is something in religious people that won't rest until it spreads to other people.

I hate superstition and people surrendering their birthright to sanity, reason, curiosity, and honest exploration of their world.

I don't have kids, but I was a damned good teacher, a better advisor and counselor, and have continued to work with kids and enable them to succeed after I left teaching. I'm currently helping put two kids of other people through college (after working like hell to get them back into college successfully).

I've been providing direction to kids for years.

I'm not angry or disturbed at your suggestion that one must have kids of one's own to understand this. I disagree, respectfully, however.

Religious people generally do think they're doing the best for their kids. They are wrong, and great and lasting damage is often being done, but that is not their intent.

Unfortunately, their intentions don't matter and do nothing to reduce the damage.

 

[Malerin]

*Puts a lid on the box*

You gotta admit, it would be awkward when your friends come over.

 

[applecorped]

Why?

 

[Complexity]

So in your view, would it be right for you to raise your children using those values, ethics and morals, which you admit have no objective basis?

I have thrown away nearly all of the received values that I absorbed from home, school, society, and religion. I have woven together a moral fabric that serves me well. I am honest about where it came from, that it is merely the best that I can do, that it is subject to change, that it may result in harm as well as in good.

I also understand something about what I value and why.

I examine my values and beliefs regularly and honestly. I do my best to keep them in repair.

There is no basis for my moral system except my life's experience, my understanding of it, and my choices.

The most that I can do is offer it as something that another person might find of value, grist for their mill, material for them to look at, try on, and incorportate into his own fabric if he chooses to.

I make no pretense or false claims about my values and morals, and I don't hesitate to offer them to people that I care about and love, for I always do so with cautions, explanations, and full disclosure.

I also don't expect anyone to find most of what I value, not to mention all of it, to be of any use. I offer, they pick and choose, and all is well.

 

[Complexity]

Thinking is fun!

Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuitions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man.

Bertrand Russell

 

[Complexity]

Like being adopted by same sex couples?

What is awkward about being adopted by a same-sex couple?

 

[Complexity]

Well, I don't believe that you have to believe in supernatural beings to do good things. Neither do I need the promise of reward or the threat of punishment to do good things myself.

Other, better ways of living? How do we decide this if we already have different criteria? I was an Atheist and an Agnostic for over 30 years. It's not as if I didn't try any alternatives.

In my previous post, I already made it explicit that one does not need to be religious to self reflect, love and care etc. ('Now let me be clear, etc.') It has helped me to do those things, which was the scope of my point. i.e. it is not time wasted.

You may think that religion has helped you do these things, and it may have, but at a price that I find unacceptably high.

It would have been better if you'd done it without religious delusions.

 

[applecorped]

“Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting than looking”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[Complexity]

You gotta admit, it would be awkward when your friends come over.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gs0TbcY2L._SL500_.jpg

You are merely a xian apologist and a homophobe.

Your opinions on most things don't matter.

 

[Malerin]

You are merely a xian apologist and a homophobe.

Your opinions on most things don't matter.

You have such a short fuse. Did you think I was serious?

But seriously, your OP is ridiculous. Did anyone bring up Santa yet?

 

[The True Scotsman]

I don't think that there is a warm and fuzzy, non-interferring enough conception of a god that wouldn't also open the door to sanctioned belief in woo (for what else is it?).

Does it really matter that a parent truly believes that vaccinations pose more harm than good?

Does it matter if a person denies that HIV can lead to AIDS?

Does it matter if a parent thinks that they are right and that they have the right to do things to their children because, after all, they are their property, aren't they?

The child still is injured, it is still abuse.

You may believe that the parent's knowledge and intent mitigate the wrong that they do (and I might very well agree in some cases), but s/he should not be left with the impression that their behavior is praisworthy.

If the person inflicting injury does not think that their behavior can cause injury, 'abuse' may not be the correct term. The child is injured, nontheless, regardless of the word that is used to describe the action that led to injury.

And far too many of those who might legitimately be described as truly believing that their actions are for the good of the child and can lead to no harm persist in the belief that their children are theirs to do with as they wish.

Again, I am not advocating punishing these parents or taking their children from them. I am advocating calling a thing what it is - damaging and potential limiting to the child.

I do believe intentions matter. If you had a child and fed him a particular type of baby food only to find out later that that baby food was tainted with e coli, would you be liable for child abuse? You may have injured your child, but did you abuse him?

 

[Complexity]

I do believe intentions matter. If you had a child and fed him a particular type of baby food only to find out later that that baby food was tainted with e coli, would you be liable for child abuse? You may have injured your child, but did you abuse him?

I have a slightly different take on the matter.

If you had taken reasonable precautions to ensure that the baby food that you were giving you baby was nourishing, safely manufactured, and safely distributed, then there is no blame; othewise, there is.

Parents teaching their children religion, or delegating religious instruction to others, have a responsibility to ensure that what is being stuffed into their kids' heads is good for them and safe for them.

I maintain that religious instruction never is, and parents who do it or who permit it are failing in their responsibility for due diligence in this matter.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

I have thrown away nearly all of the received values that I absorbed from home, school, society, and religion. I have woven together a moral fabric that serves me well. I am honest about where it came from, that it is merely the best that I can do, that it is subject to change, that it may result in harm as well as in good.

I also understand something about what I value and why.

I examine my values and beliefs regularly and honestly. I do my best to keep them in repair.

There is no basis for my moral system except my life's experience, my understanding of it, and my choices.

The most that I can do is offer it as something that another person might find of value, grist for their mill, material for them to look at, try on, and incorportate into his own fabric if he chooses to.

I make no pretense or false claims about my values and morals, and I don't hesitate to offer them to people that I care about and love, for I always do so with cautions, explanations, and full disclosure.

I also don't expect anyone to find most of what I value, not to mention all of it, to be of any use. I offer, they pick and choose, and all is well.

Well, I applaud you Complexity.

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?

I want my kids to be inquisitive and well-rounded. I would love for them to read about philosophy, religion, history, science, etc. I don't mind if this is Nietzche, Bishop Berkely, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx or whoever. I would love for them just to be interested about these things. Of course, I will share what I think and believe and explain the reasons why I thought it was right to raise them as I did. Of course, I would love for them to share my beliefs, but I am realistic that this may not be the case.

I recognize that there is upbringing that is harmful and damaging, that may have a religious content. But, there is also upbringing that is rewarding and beneficial, that also may have a religious content. That is all I ask you to recognise. Surely we need to discern clearly what emotionally and physically abusive behaviours are if we're going to help children? Painting all religious parents as abusive, simply by the fact of them being religious is simply a fallacy of generalisation.

 

[KingMerv00]

What is awkward about being adopted by a same-sex couple?

It is awkward how stupid other people are.

 

[Complexity]

Well, I applaud you Complexity.

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?

I want my kids to be inquisitive and well-rounded. I would love for them to read about philosophy, religion, history, science, etc. I don't mind if this is Nietzche, Bishop Berkely, Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx or whoever. I would love for them just to be interested about these things. Of course, I will share what I think and believe and explain the reasons why I thought it was right to raise them as I did. Of course, I would love for them to share my beliefs, but I am realistic that this may not be the case.

I recognize that there is upbringing that is harmful and damaging, that may have a religious content. But, there is also upbringing that is rewarding and beneficial, that also may have a religious content. That is all I ask you to recognise. Surely we need to discern clearly what emotionally and physically abusive behaviours are if we're going to help children? Painting all religious parents as abusive, simply by the fact of them being religious is simply a fallacy of generalisation.

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.

 

[Complexity]

It is awkward how stupid other people are.

There was no point in responding to him, I know, but I had a moment and couldn't help myself.

I wish I'd been in a position to have kids, adopt, or foster.

I wonder if he's aware of how much pain his bigotry and thoughtless cruelty cause both adults and kids.

 

[Malerin]

There was no point in responding to him, I know, but I had a moment and couldn't help myself.

I wish I'd been in a position to have kids, adopt, or foster.

I wonder if he's aware of how much pain his bigotry and thoughtless cruelty cause both adults and kids.

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).