Religious instruction is child abuse

[Sledge]

Can you cite the research showing children believe their imaginary friends are real?

 

[Monkian1234]

Can you cite the research showing children believe their imaginary friends are real?

I sure can't. I also can't cite any research showing what people (of any age) believe as opposed to what they say they believe.


Btw-your sig with the Airwolf haiku quote is priceless

 

[Sledge]

Fair do's. Just a matter of functional curiosity for me. My goddaughter turns five in a couple of weeks and whilst she doesn't have an imaginary friend at the moment, I should probably start looking into that sort of thing.

Oh, and if you're not familiar with the quote, this link might interest you. Spoken word, and a couple of uses of the "f word," in case you're somewhere that might be a problem.

 

[Monkian1234]

Thank you for the link

Stringfellow Hawke-LMAO!

That was just plain fun


Anyway, make extra sure you destroy whatever innocence you goddaughter has so that she doesn't accidentally end up believing in something imaginary

The time for truth is now, after all


Off to work, now. Have a good one all

 

[Sledge]

The issue of how to deal with all these myths that are part of childhood is part (a small part, but part nonetheless) of why I don't want to have children. I really don't know where I stand on allowing children to believe in these sort of things. Take Father Christmas, for example. Ok, I see the "let them have some magic whilst they're young enough to enjoy it" point of view. On the other hand, I remember being absolutely livid the year I realised the truth and nearly ruined Christmas for the whole family. I threw a massive strop and refused to have anything to do with the lies, even when it was pointed out that if I didn't want to take part then I wouldn't get any presents. Eventually my father calmed me down by pointing out I was upsetting my two younger sisters and my mother, so I agreed to go along with things. Given this allowed me to both receive a load of presents and maintain my dignity by only backing down for the sake of others, I suspect I was a cunning little bastard even then.

Sorry, I seem to have wandered off the point. Anyhoo, like I was saying, I kinda see both points of view. The real value I see in things like Santa is that that incident was what made me realise that you shouldn't have blind faith in anyone or anything, even those who love you. That's a pretty valuable lesson for kids to have.

But. Religion doesn't work like that. There doesn't come a point in a child's life where the rabbi/priest/parent*/whatever says "All that stuff we've been saying about God? Yeah, that may not be true. I mean, we'd really like it to be true. But the actual evidence is really lacking. So if you want to believe that, that's fine. And if you want to look at other religions, that's also fine. And if you follow another religion, or if you decide that nothing works for you, that's all good."

*I would hope that a good parent would say this (or even make it clear from the start that religion is a personal thing where the individual has to decide for themselves), but I think we all know that this doesn't always happen.

 

[westprog]

No, belief systems that hold large sway over people's lives without providing sufficient evidence for why they should be followed.

Before you go around using the "f" word (fallacy), you may want to at least make sure that the person you are accusing is guilty of said fallacy. When did I ever say it was possible or necessary to have a completely neutral government (including public officials)? Find it and then come back to me.

Either you have government without beliefs, or you have government with beliefs that you happen not to like banned. Of course, what you actually end up with are hidden beliefs.

 

[qayak]

Is that what I am saying? Thanks for letting me know!

See I thought I was saying that we shouldn't stop at religion. We should dispel all untruths, myths, and illusions.


I totally agree that we should teach children critical thinking. Just don't stop at one thing though! Next time you see a five year old with an imaginary friend, you should stop and tell them that their is no such thing. Who cares if it makes the kid's day seem a little brighter and better? It just plain isn't true so lets make sure they understand that ASAP!

Nice try but the two are completely different. Religious indoctrination: "myths and lies being taught to children as truth."

Do you see the difference now? It is okay to have untrue thoughts, it is not okay for adults to teach children that myths and lies are true.

As a master of critical thinking yourself (well at least in so far as you claim to know the basis of the entire discipline), I am sure you realize that taking a train of thought to its inevitable conclusion is also a big part of critical thinking.

But your claim isn't taking the original train of thought ot its natural conclusion. You had to completely change the original thought to get where you did. You took the silly thought train, not the logical thought train.

So lets just make sure we aren't selective in the way we teach children that there is no flying spaghetti monster, jeebus, what have you. We should really spell out all things for them and never, ever let them have a moment where they believe in something that you or I perceive to be fictional. Because that would be tantamount to the same thing as teaching them a lie.

No, not even close. Teachers by law, and oath, cannot knowingly teach children a falsehood. We already have those types of rules in place in our society. People love to hate teachers but they expect so much from them. On the other hand, people just love their religious leaders and yet, they expect, and receive, so little from them.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Either you have government without beliefs, or you have government with beliefs that you happen not to like banned. Of course, what you actually end up with are hidden beliefs.

Ummm...I'm not really following where what you are saying is coming from in relation to my posts. By "government" do you mean the collection of individual government officials or an amorphous entity? By "beliefs" do you mean beliefs specific to and pertaining to religious faiths (ie Jesus is God, the anti-Christ is coming to destroy the world, etc)?

 

[westprog]

Nice try but the two are completely different. Religious indoctrination: "myths and lies being taught to children as truth."

Do you see the difference now? It is okay to have untrue thoughts, it is not okay for adults to teach children that myths and lies are true.



But your claim isn't taking the original train of thought ot its natural conclusion. You had to completely change the original thought to get where you did. You took the silly thought train, not the logical thought train.



No, not even close. Teachers by law, and oath, cannot knowingly teach children a falsehood. We already have those types of rules in place in our society. People love to hate teachers but they expect so much from them. On the other hand, people just love their religious leaders and yet, they expect, and receive, so little from them.

Ummm...I'm not really following where what you are saying is coming from in relation to my posts. By "government" do you mean the collection of individual government officials or an amorphous entity? By "beliefs" do you mean beliefs specific to and pertaining to religious faiths (ie Jesus is God, the anti-Christ is coming to destroy the world, etc)?

It's quite simple really. If one wants to ban certain things being taught, then you have to choose what is banned and what is permitted. That is just a matter of picking out what is truth and what isn't - which is of course a matter of opinion.

In the USA, for example, it's not acceptable for the government to tell everyone that God is a three-in-one omnipotent being. The corollary of this is that the government isn't allowed to tell people that God is a makey-up story.

As can be readily seen from this forum, there is no consensus on what is and isn't true. Any ban on particular forms of expression are simply a matter of who has the power, not some impartial truth-seeking.

 

[Piscivore]

No, not even close. Teachers by law, and oath, cannot knowingly teach children a falsehood.

Really? Which law? What oath?

 

[Piscivore]

But. Religion doesn't work like that. There doesn't come a point in a child's life where the rabbi/priest/parent*/whatever says "All that stuff we've been saying about God? Yeah, that may not be true. I mean, we'd really like it to be true. But the actual evidence is really lacking. So if you want to believe that, that's fine. And if you want to look at other religions, that's also fine. And if you follow another religion, or if you decide that nothing works for you, that's all good."

"... what is important is how you treat people."

I had this exact conversation with one of my Methodist ministers back in the day, and two weeks ago my wife and daughter reported the sermon at that same church amounted to "If your religion won't let you think for yourself, you're in the wrong religion".

*I would hope that a good parent would say this (or even make it clear from the start that religion is a personal thing where the individual has to decide for themselves), but I think we all know that this doesn't always happen.

Doesn't always, but it's not "never" either.

 

[The True Scotsman]

It's quite simple really. If one wants to ban certain things being taught, then you have to choose what is banned and what is permitted. That is just a matter of picking out what is truth and what isn't - which is of course a matter of opinion.

In the USA, for example, it's not acceptable for the government to tell everyone that God is a three-in-one omnipotent being. The corollary of this is that the government isn't allowed to tell people that God is a makey-up story.

As can be readily seen from this forum, there is no consensus on what is and isn't true. Any ban on particular forms of expression are simply a matter of who has the power, not some impartial truth-seeking.

If that is your opinion then why are you arguing with me?

 

[Monkian1234]

Nice try but the two are completely different. Religious indoctrination: "myths and lies being taught to children as truth."

Do you see the difference now? It is okay to have untrue thoughts, it is not okay for adults to teach children that myths and lies are true.



But your claim isn't taking the original train of thought ot its natural conclusion. You had to completely change the original thought to get where you did. You took the silly thought train, not the logical thought train.



No, not even close. Teachers by law, and oath, cannot knowingly teach children a falsehood. We already have those types of rules in place in our society. People love to hate teachers but they expect so much from them. On the other hand, people just love their religious leaders and yet, they expect, and receive, so little from them.

I do not see the difference, friend. Why is it ok to have untrue thoughts and allow them to stand when it isn't ok to teach lies as truth? The outcome is the same either way. The individual ends up believing something that isn't true.


Did I take the silly thought train? Silly me ><. If one lie is bad because it affects the development of a person then I thought it followed that lies were bad in general. Guess they aren't. You are totally right-I sure am a silly goose!


And teachers cannot knowingly teach a falsehood to children? By oath? Wow...that's a new one on me! I mean as a math teacher myself I admit that I do not have to often think about deliberately lying to students. So I guess I just glossed over that part while getting my degree and teaching certificate. I will have to ask other teachers about that oath so I can get their take on it. Thanks for the heads up on that one!

But now since I know about the oath, I will make sure that the next time a child asks me whether or not they could be president I will be sure to tell them that it is technically possible but that the odds of it happening are slim to none. Omission is a form of deception and I don't want to break the oath that I apparently took at some time

 

[Belz...]

The simplest and most just thing to do would be to cure them of religion.

Not an easy thing to do. In the end one cures oneself.

But as I said, considering that everybody teaches their children what they believe, religious or otherwise, I still don't see why teaching religion is abuse. Absurd, yes, but not abuse.

 

[Barb7]

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.

I strongly agree with you. I've been saying the same for months. It should be made a criminal offence to teach children such outlandish, illogical - and, dangerous nonsense.

 

[Ali]

Tell me; what are these untruths, myths, and illusions about the Lord that you think we should dispel?

 

[The True Scotsman]

Tell me; what are these untruths, myths, and illusions about the Lord that you think we should dispel?

How about the untruth that God is a closet Culture Club fan? That one is outrageous.

 

[Monkian1234]

How about the untruth that God is a closet Culture Club fan? That one is outrageous.

Worst untruth in existence!

 

[sgtbaker]

I see no problem with teaching religious instruction and converting people which have already been taught to reason rationaly, or at least have had BASIC grounding for it.
But teaching it to young children (I saw it as low as 5years, up to 12/13 for sunday school), at a point of time where they can only accepts what the adult role model tell tham ad-hoc, and potentially stay on those early fundement, is IMHO brainwashing. As I see the world as it is, it seems only a minority of kids see "through" it.

Are you kidding? Vacation Bible Study takes them as young as 3. When I was still on the fence, I saw nothing wrong with taking them for a few hours, once a week, to spend time with other children. For the most part, it seems harmless enough; they spent a lot of time focusing more on being kind to one another, being generous, charitable, stuff like that. The end of the program, everyone sat in the auditorium and they would sing a (seemingly endless) song. Then they would quote something from the bible and the kids that can recite it again the following week, got a toy. They never asked if the kid understood what they were reciting, they didn't seem to care, just as long as they can parrot the phrase, they got a toy. At the very end of the weekly event, they would have some sort of reinforcement. Again, most of the time, it seemed harmless. The woman on stage would say something like, "the worst thing you can do is turn your back on someone in need," and the kids would say it back. The absolute last time I was there, the woman on stage (mind you, the ages of the children are 3-12yrs.) begings chanting, "If you don't go to church every week, you will burn in hell." And the kids were chanting it back. I whispered to my aunt (the one that invited me), "This is utterly disturbing!" Quietly gathered my kids and waited in the parkinglot till my aunt came out.

 

[westprog]

I see no problem with teaching religious instruction and converting people which have already been taught to reason rationaly, or at least have had BASIC grounding for it.

Whatever about religion, BASIC really is child abuse.