Why might religious teaching of the young be classed as abuse?

[Quintessence]

Or, maybe what will happen if we allow the outside reinforcement of religious dogma on our children is,

Science would be used to explain the why, what, how, and the when about all natural phenomena. These explanations are testable, predictable, intuitively consistent, and falsifiable. The child will develop inductive and deductive critical thinking skills, that are essential in their later role in society, if they are cultivated early. Religious indoctrination does none of this.

Art skills will be demonstrated by the child at an early age. It is up to the parents to cultivate and nourish the child's creative talents to their full potential. Creative skills of children are independent of any religious teachings. Since art is only the representation of ideas, there is no restrictions on what is being represented. To limit a child's imagination is chid abuse.

Relationships are observed and assimilated by the child within their first society. Do you think how mommy and daddy relate to each other, will play any role on how the child will formulate his own relationships? Do you think that the child might learn what the role of each member of the family is? Or, do you think that Religious Dogma, comes with a family instruction book? Also some religious principles are certainly not exclusive only to religions. I would hate to teach my kids all of the cruelties, murders, rape, genocide, infanticide, parricide, and many other not-so-nice teachings from the Bible. But feel free to cherry-pick only the good things.

Maybe this would happen in YOUR household. But, I think your interpretation represents the most extreme knee-jerk reaction to this proposal. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

... I think you missed the point of that post there.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What are you talking about. You are the one who said that I used a non-sequitur. I explained how it was clearly not. You seem confused.

I said "We teach children many aspects that have no relation to science. Are you going to suggest that schools should not be able to tell kids not to lie or name call?"

You replied


Your answer to this question is slightly incoherent. You say "no" but your thesis is that children will learn these things regardless of schools. This creates ambiguity. Resolution of the ambiguity is achieved by using a parallel question to the one in the OP "should the schools be allowed to teach no name calling or no lying."

You then go on to explain that you weren't saying schools ought not be allowed to teach these issues, but you indicate that the issue is a non-sequitur.

Yet you are the one who outlined the purpose of the school:



Nowhere in that can we derive a rational to teach kids not to lie or name-call. So if teachers are allowed to teach these things either 1) the purpose must be broader than you describe or 2) excluding the teaching of topics not germane to the purpose of teaching does not follow.

So the issues of lying or name calling are not non sequitur issues.
Not in a post to me.

For many reasons. It depends on what status offense you are discussing.

I think you are mistaken. While some may have been bolstered with such reasoning, many were not.
price of tee in China. If children are found with cigarettes, porn, alcohol and they are out at night unsupervised then the parent will also likely be charged with neglect. I think you lack an acute understanding of the law.

Lol, that is hilarious you specifically asked

You wanted me to tell you what was counter-intuitive that needed external proof. I did; your assertion that :

And for those keeping track, you still have not justified this in any coherent fashion.


Nope, not at all. Please indicate where you think I have advocated for such.

Let me quote you, "You say it is a non sequitur but it appears that you answered that way when I asked that question. If you would like, I can post the relevant quotes". I'm still waiting on the relevant quotes, or the statement(s) you've made that I claimed were non sequitur. Many studies have demonstrated that children have a basic understanding of the difference between what is good and bad behavior, and what is right and wrong behavior. Most of this is self-evident and intuitive. But if you want me to cite specific books, or the relevant internet sites to visit to satisfy your need for validation, I'll send them in my next post. Sorry, I just assumed that everyone was aware of these studies. These studies and their results are freely available to anyone. For example, if a child in a group wants a toy from another child, and gets punched in the mouth for taking it, he will learn very quickly the consequences of his action. If a child sees a puppet that is portrayed as treating another puppet harmfully or with cruelty, the child in most cases will not play with the puppet doing the harm. There are many cues that children respond to that are not taught per se.

I outlined the primary purpose of the education system. Do you agree or not? Schools are not morality institutions for learning, they are curriculum based institutions devoted to developing and extending the child's intellectual curiosity. I am not saying that schools should not have rules of conduct that the child should follow. Do you think the purpose of these rules and regulations, are to teach the child that name calling and lying are morally wrong? Or do you think that the rules are in place to protect students from harm, and against unnecessary disruptions or distractions? If a child lies, he will get caught out, and have to face the consequences. If the child calls other children names, eventually he get smacked in the mouth, or avoided as a consequence of his action. Society, and peer groups are great teachers. Are you suggesting that if schools do not teach students not to name call, or lie, that they are indirectly encouraging children to do so? When children reach school age, they generally know that name calling is bad, and lying is worst. If the child needs a school to teach him that lying and name-calling is bad, then he has lived 5 years of its life in a cocoon. So, It is irrelevant if the school teaches this or not.

What other reason can you think of why children are restricted from staying out late, buying cigarettes, alcohol, legal responsibility, or watching porn or violent movies? Adult hypocrisy?

Look, we all have our opinions. I happen to believe that any outside reinforcement of unfalsifiable myth and superstition, is totally unnecessary for the intellectual health of the child. And is certainly not in the child's best interest. Why not just wait for the child to decide the path he chooses to take? Even if he wanted to attend clan meetings.

 

[Curious George]

Let me quote you, "You say it is a non sequitur but it appears that you answered that way when I asked that question. If you would like, I can post the relevant quotes". I'm still waiting on the relevant quotes, or the statement(s) you've made that I claimed were non sequitur.

Sorry, that was a poor articulation on my part. That way was supposed to indicate that the issues logically stemmed from your answers i.e. they were nit non sequiturs. The idea was I was pushing back against your assertions that these issues did not logically flow from our conversation and suggesting that you responded in a way which made them logically relevant. I see where the confusion was, it was my mistake.

Many studies have demonstrated that children have a basic understanding of the difference between what is good and bad behavior, and what is right and wrong behavior. Most of this is self-evident and intuitive. But if you want me to cite specific books, or the relevant internet sites to visit to satisfy your need for validation, I'll send them in my next post. Sorry, I just assumed that everyone was aware of these studies. These studies and their results are freely available to anyone. For example, if a child in a group wants a toy from another child, and gets punched in the mouth for taking it, he will learn very quickly the consequences of his action. If a child sees a puppet that is portrayed as treating another puppet harmfully or with cruelty, the child in most cases will not play with the puppet doing the harm. There are many cues that children respond to that are not taught per se.

Absolutely quote them if you like but do not forget to include citations that run counter to this. I thought most were aware that children work best with clear guidelines and consistent enforcement of those guidelines. However, you can probably save yourself the trouble as this was not the issue that I was asking you to support.

I outlined the primary purpose of the education system. Do you agree or not?

We can save my agreement as it is not relevant. I am saying based on your outlined purpose instruction on not lying and no name calling would also not fit that purpose. So assuming your purpose, we see other areas that are still allowed to be taught.

Schools are not morality institutions for learning, they are curriculum based institutions devoted to developing and extending the child's intellectual curiosity.

Yet they teach morals nonetheless.

I am not saying that schools should not have rules of conduct that the child should follow. Do you think the purpose of these rules and regulations, are to teach the child that name calling and lying are morally wrong? Or do you think that the rules are in place to protect students from harm, and against unnecessary disruptions or distractions?
[/quote] Do the rules end at the school? Enforcement may but are children taught not to lie just at school? Or not to name call just at school? Moreover, I am not sure that base instruction on not lying or no name calling achieves the ends you suggest.

If a child lies, he will get caught out, and have to face the consequences. If the child calls other children names, eventually he get smacked in the mouth, or avoided as a consequence of his action. Society, and peer groups are great teachers.

not necessarily.

Are you suggesting that if schools do not teach students not to name call, or lie, that they are indirectly encouraging children to do so?

no, I am suggesting that additional teaching that deals with morals or even religion is not necessarily wrong as you indicate. And, this is true even if the teachings are not directly related to your stated purpose for the schools.

When children reach school age, they generally know that name calling is bad, and lying is worst.

Why would you think that?

If the child needs a school to teach him that lying and name-calling is bad, then he has lived 5 years of its life in a cocoon. So, It is irrelevant if the school teaches this or not.

Hmmm, not so sure I agree here. But that is not the point.

What other reason can you think of why children are restricted from staying out late, buying cigarettes, alcohol, legal responsibility, or watching porn or violent movies? Adult hypocrisy?

Again the evolution of status offenses vary- both by offense and by jurisdiction.

Look, we all have our opinions. I happen to believe that any outside reinforcement of unfalsifiable myth and superstition, is totally unnecessary for the intellectual health of the child.

I completely agree.

And is certainly not in the child's best interest.

I disagree. It is this that I would like you to support with evidence.

Why not just wait for the child to decide the path he chooses to take? Even if he wanted to attend clan meetings.

For the same reason that snatching up native American children and denying them their religion and culture was wrong. It was harmful; it was systemic abuse.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Sorry, that was a poor articulation on my part. That way was supposed to indicate that the issues logically stemmed from your answers i.e. they were nit non sequiturs. The idea was I was pushing back against your assertions that these issues did not logically flow from our conversation and suggesting that you responded in a way which made them logically relevant. I see where the confusion was, it was my mistake.

Absolutely quote them if you like but do not forget to include citations that run counter to this. I thought most were aware that children work best with clear guidelines and consistent enforcement of those guidelines. However, you can probably save yourself the trouble as this was not the issue that I was asking you to support.
We can save my agreement as it is not relevant. I am saying based on your outlined purpose instruction on not lying and no name calling would also not fit that purpose. So assuming your purpose, we see other areas that are still allowed to be taught.

Yet they teach morals nonetheless.

I am not saying that schools should not have rules of conduct that the child should follow. Do you think the purpose of these rules and regulations, are to teach the child that name calling and lying are morally wrong? Or do you think that the rules are in place to protect students from harm, and against unnecessary disruptions or distractions?

Do the rules end at the school? Enforcement may but are children taught not to lie just at school? Or not to name call just at school? Moreover, I am not sure that base instruction on not lying or no name calling achieves the ends you suggest.
not necessarily.

no, I am suggesting that additional teaching that deals with morals or even religion is not necessarily wrong as you indicate. And, this is true even if the teachings are not directly related to your stated purpose for the schools.
Why would you think that?


Hmmm, not so sure I agree here. But that is not the point.
Again the evolution of status offenses vary- both by offense and by jurisdiction.

I completely agree.
I disagree. It is this that I would like you to support with evidence.

For the same reason that snatching up native American children and denying them their religion and culture was wrong. It was harmful; it was systemic abuse.[/QUOTE]

I thank you for your candor and honesty. This says a lot about your character. I still have a few small issues concerning your post.

No one is suggesting that underage children should be prohibited from being taught any religion. I am suggesting that children be taught religious ideas ONLY by their parents and under THEIR supervision, until they reach the age of consent. Only because I don't want Government interference into my private life anymore than what is absolutely necessary. Children should only be prohibited from attending any religious organizations or groups when their parents are not present. We need to teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT to think. The child's critical thinking and deductive reasoning skills develop at a very early age. These skills are vital in all facets of the child's natural ability to excel and learn. Religious teachings retard this ability, since all answers will eventually be filled with "God did it". Or, "God wants you to". Just as there are no instruction books that come with parenting, there are no instruction books that come with how to be a child. All children are different and all parenting methods are different. Now you want to add the extracurricular unsupervised teaching of superstitious nonsense to the mix. These organizations know that if children are left alone, they will have no need to rely on or pray to a magical, all-powerful, super-daddy in the sky, on their own. They would be forced to become more self-reliant. So, they have no choice, but to target and indoctrinate the helpless and vulnerable minds of children, knowing that they are incapable of understanding the nuances of adult religious beliefs and philosophy. It is these outside influences(TV, movies, video games, music, etc.) that have the greatest effect on our children, by shaping their perspective of reality, social norms and values, and by teaching them WHAT to think not HOW to think.

How Children Learn Right from Wrong
Can Morality be Taught?

Could we stop bringing up schools. I only mentioned schools in response to your statement that I didn't think that schools should be teaching children not to lie, or call other children names. I never did. Are you cherry-picking one tiny aspect of religious moral teaching to, marry institutions devoted to higher learning and guiding children in HOW to think, with organizations devoted to beliefs, faith, superstitions, and teaching children WHAT to think? Since I have already stated that I don't care if schools did, this does not mean that I disagree. So, stop asking me "why not". This is a straw man fallacy. I have absolutely no idea what " Again the evolution of status offenses vary- both by offense and by jurisdiction." means, as an answer to my question.

You don't really think that early childhood is spent inside a closet or a cocoon? That children are just a lump of living clay, and all knowledge begins once they begin school(5 years)? I'm saying that all children will have developed an intuitive understanding of what encompasses good behavior and what encompasses bad behavior, before they begin school. I hope that I have also contrasted my sites as well.

5 Stages of Moral Growth of Children | Ask Dr Sears
THE BRAIN FROM TOP TO BOTTOM
The Decline of Children and the Moral Sense

 

[Prestor John]

I've been nothing but disagreement with everything in this OP, but lashing out in anger and putting words in people's mouth isn't the solution.

Solution to what?

The only problem I am seeing here (other than your assumption that I am at all angry) is someone trying to claim that fascist ideals lead to more freedom...somehow.

All I did was cut through the "BS" of the OP and get at the core of the argument.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Solution to what?

The only problem I am seeing here (other than your assumption that I am at all angry) is someone trying to claim that fascist ideals lead to more freedom...somehow.

All I did was cut through the "BS" of the OP and get at the core of the argument.

What, that you find it perfectly OK to impose your religious beliefs on a child?

 

[Prestor John]

Quite.

Indeed.

Heh.

But who gave anyone such a right - other people?

God.

Especially those of us who have some doubt as to the existence of said God.

You guys get to have some fun and play "Fill in the Blank"

Be it "Flying Spaghetti Monster", "Yoda", "other people" or even "Unknown" if you want - just as long as you understand that it is an inalienable right that everyone has - you are free to believe it came from whatever or whoever you want!

Lucky! I'm so jealous!

Oooh!

I know!

But before you ask I have to tell you that I myself don't even know why I am so amazing.

I think it might have to do with my wife being really attractive.

I believe religions have been the worst invention of mankind, that I will admit, and would rather they all just disappeared from whence they came, but it has little relevance to the question posed.

I knew it! I'm so good!

This information is actually relevant because it showcases your true motivations for asking the question.

You are entitled to believe what you want (because of God or "Fill in the Blank"), but sharing your true motive would make discussing the topic more tolerable.

You were not motivated to ask this question by a desire to help children, but by your hatred for religion.

Of course I care about rights - I just see the children perhaps having some more over the possession aspect that people like you seem to think appropriate - children are not your possessions - they will be independent individuals at some point (hopefully) and I would propose it starts earlier than you would want.

First off, I can't believe you are claiming that my desire to teach my children what I believe to be true is out of some false sense of ownership or possession.

I don't know if you are a parent, but when you have children you are obligated to prepare them to be productive and law-abiding citizens.

Until your children come of age they are your responsibility. Everything negative or positive they do or say will reflect on you.

I have gained knowledge and experience from trying and testing my beliefs and I have come to know that they are good and true.

My desire to raise my children according to ideals that I know to be good and can lead them to be mature and responsible adults if they live by them is not based on some twisted sense of possession, but rather my love for them.

Needless to say, but this position is incredibly hypocritical of you.

No doubt your mother warded off many religious people who desired to teach her and you about their faith over the years.

Could not I claim that she did so out of some sick and twisted sense of possession?

She raised you the way she wanted because she only thought of you as a possession.

You were just as indoctrinated by your mother as any other kid growing up in a religious household and now you are preaching that doctrine to others.

As for the rest - get lost - I don't hate religions, I don't fear them, and I have about as much comprehension as is required.

This seems to contradict what you said about religion earlier.

How do you measure your comprehension of these religions?

 

[Prestor John]

What, that you find it perfectly OK to impose your religious beliefs on a child?

That depends on what you mean by "impose" and if you are claiming that parents should never "impose" anything upon their children.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You were not motivated to ask this question by a desire to help children, but by your hatred for religion.

Hardly - one can accomplish both when the position is correct - religions just being made-up nonsense, and children deserving better from their parents - some at least might recognise this - not you apparently. And I don't hate religions - I don't like erroneous beliefs or those based on supposition.

First off, I can't believe you are claiming that my desire to teach my children what I believe to be true is out of some false sense of ownership or possession.

What is it then, when you can hardly guarantee that any child will necessarily follow the same religion as the parent or have any religion later in life. Why not just wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves? Because you know you have to catch them young - I believe even Jesus might have had some input here.

I don't know if you are a parent, but when you have children you are obligated to prepare them to be productive and law-abiding citizens.

And that has exactly what to do with religious beliefs?

My desire to raise my children according to ideals that I know to be good and can lead them to be mature and responsible adults if they live by them is not based on some twisted sense of possession, but rather my love for them.

A rather distorted love though - when one doesn't raise them to be free and independent individuals.

No doubt your mother warded off many religious people who desired to teach her and you about their faith over the years.

Could not I claim that she did so out of some sick and twisted sense of possession?

She raised you the way she wanted because she only thought of you as a possession.

You were just as indoctrinated by your mother as any other kid growing up in a religious household and now you are preaching that doctrine to others.

This seems to contradict what you said about religion earlier.

How do you measure your comprehension of these religions?

You should perhaps have looked further into my life - I have been quite open. My mother hardly even mentioned religion, apart from trying me out at the local Methodist Chapel - I was far more interested in other things - and she was a paragon of virtue such that I didn't need to have any religions. I essentially gave them the boot around age 11 when I discovered there were so many different ones. Nowt has come close to making me change my mind so I suspect it was the right decision at the time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That depends on what you mean by "impose" and if you are claiming that parents should never "impose" anything upon their children.

I think you recognise the difference - most will have no problems with all the other various things we teach children, but religious beliefs are a different category of belief.