• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Surely we can tell what is religious teaching and what isn't.
I'm pretty sure I could quote you both religious and nonreligious metaethics as they arose through philosophy and it woukd all be Greek to you (pun intended.) There is no line between religious and non-religious creedences once you step out of the entirely inaccurate bubble of religion = Abrahamic religions.
old enough to be capable of questioning such things
I don't give kids so little credit and further I don't
see why it matters unless it's actually hurting them.
I'm asking is that the teaching of such be deferred until they are capable of understanding and/or resisting (where necessary). Why oppose that?
Firstly because its merely trying to impose your non-religious values on a religious family because you're assuming a child might not want to have that upbringing when they grow up. I have no more reason to believe that than they would grow up feeling like they missed out on something important to the family.

Secondly because it's an unnecessary outside imposition not based on evidence of harm. Which is the only thing we should be looking for when dictating parent behavior.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
The main reason why I oppose the religious teaching of young children (and just the young), especially in faith schools, is because, to me at least, it is a denial of their basic human rights - to grow up free from any particular bias or influence that is not proven to be based in reality or that has rather dubious claims to authority. I think few would not see that things like denying a child an adequate education (although poverty often prevents this), child marriage, FGM and perhaps male circumcision, child prostitution, child workers (although mostly done because of the poverty aspect again, so I could exclude this), and paedophilia, were negations of the basic human rights of any child when they are just not in a position usually to combat such situations. I would propose that religious teaching - although this will vary enormously on a spectrum from mild to obvious abuse (as in strict indoctrination) - falls into this same class of abuses, even if done for quite positive reasons. The main difference being that religious teaching exploits the ability of a child to comprehend and/or combat the ideas and concepts put forward, whereas the others usually do this but also abuse various essential freedoms too - usually of bodily integrity or inappropriate behaviour for their age, amongst others. And of course I do know that much religious teaching would hardly be seen as such and mainly being about giving a historical context for such things as moral behaviour for example.

The obvious complaint might be made that it is a parent's right to educate their child as they see fit, and that what is imbued in the child will usually enhance their life - even just by way of the moral values usually attached to any particular religious belief. But this latter can be done without recourse to religion - as my mother did, setting the perfect example without hardly a mention of religion if she actually had any religious belief, which I'm not really sure she ever did have (never really discussed). It is quite possible to introduce religions later in life when any child will have sufficient ability to comprehend any teaching and to assess it appropriately, so why do it when a child is much more vulnerable to such ideas? I think many will know one reason at least. It is usually so because unless they are captured when young it is highly likely that they might not take to any such belief - ever - judging by the current decline in religious beliefs all around the world. It's still a deceptive practice though.

I know many will be outraged that religious teaching could in any way be included in a list alongside paedophilia, child marriage, or child prostitution, but the first is often done (by the more thinking types at least) because of some belief that children are born naturally sexual and/or that the love between a paedophile and a child is just as legitimate as any other love - delusional as this might be. Similarly, child marriage is often done in the belief that the parent is looking towards the future welfare of the child. I actually came across one person insisting it was his right to arrange child marriage for his eight-year-old daughter - with him possibly being a paedophile actually - since he insisted she was his property. Child prostitution often occurs for the same reason - although again, poverty is often a factor - in that any care-giver(?) perhaps sees the child as a resource to be exploited, particularly when the child might make more money than any employment by the adult. All three generally involve a delusional belief as to what is appropriate for a young child.

Apart from where cultural inertia is an issue or where religious enforcement is the norm, it seems that in many countries (usually the more technologically advanced and/or educated) religious beliefs are declining by at least 1% per year, so one can see that if this carries on, religions might just fade out of existence quite naturally anyway.

Do any here feel they have a right to dictate what their child should believe concerning such matters - leaving out any teaching of morality, since I think mostly a consensus view on this tends to prevail anyway? I mean, many will have some doubts about their belief with many having no doubts at all, but do you think you have the right to usurp the choices of your child in such matters when they are essentially not capable of doing so if religions are taught at such a young age?

I would consider government prevention of parent's teaching their religious views and values to their children to be one of the most unimaginable overreaches of government and denial of basic rights of parents and families. I generally consider people to be nutty who gather up excessive arms and ammunition and move to the mountains to hide from the government and to prepare for the time when the U.S. government will no longer believe in freedom. But then I hear this kind of talk and ask myself "Is this country ever going to slide so far into secularism and become so liberal and so anti-religious, that it will actually be a crime for parents to teach religion to their children"? This is the stuff futuristic horror movies are made of. I hope the nuts living in the mountains are not right.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
You don't believe that children do have any essential rights?
I believe that rights are emergent and contingent upon cultural norms, many of which were conveyed by and inspired by religion. I also believe that people who whine about religion too often demonstrate an unhelpful shallowness.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I'm pretty sure I could quote you both religious and nonreligious metaethics as they arose through philosophy and it woukd all be Greek to you (pun intended.) There is no line between religious and non-religious creedences once you step out of the entirely inaccurate bubble of religion = Abrahamic religions.

I don't give kids so little credit and further I don't
see why it matters unless it's actually hurting them.

Firstly because its merely trying to impose your non-religious values on a religious family because you're assuming a child might not want to have that upbringing when they grow up. I have no more reason to believe that than they would grow up feeling like they missed out on something important to the family.

Secondly because it's an unnecessary outside imposition not based on evidence of harm. Which is the only thing we should be looking for when dictating parent behavior.

I disagree. I think anything which tends to separate one from others, such as a religious belief, and where such teaching occurs at a young age, should be questioned. We have enough divisions in the world already. Why not just defer such teaching? Perhaps because, as I keep mentioning, it is deception?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I would consider government prevention of parent's teaching their religious views and values to their children to be one of the most unimaginable overreaches of government and denial of basic rights of parents and families. I generally consider people to be nutty who gather up excessive arms and ammunition and move to the mountains to hide from the government and to prepare for the time when the U.S. government will no longer believe in freedom. But then I hear this kind of talk and ask myself "Is this country ever going to slide so far into secularism and become so liberal and so anti-religious, that it will actually be a crime for parents to teach religion to their children"? This is the stuff futuristic horror movies are made of. I hope the nuts living in the mountains are not right.

Deferring until they are old enough, not preventing it.
 

Truly Enlightened

Well-Known Member
If you think there is any child that learns from their parents or relative caregiver where they are absolutely free of bias, then you're delusional. Everyone has some sort of bias, that's human nature. Parents all have their own biases and will inevitably impart that to their progeny. To varying degrees. I know honest to god educators who know how to teach children objectively. They know the techniques and do it for a living and even they impart some small bias when teaching their young. Probably better than many, admittedly. But still.

Religion. Well that's where things get tricky. If you're not Abrahamic and living in the post colonial hangover, chances are your family's religious teachings is something of a matter of pride. A sense of identity to cling to in rebellion and disgust at how it was beaten out of us generations ago. A way to hold onto our cultural heritage.

I guess it's all relative.
If you're teaching a kid to blindly obey you, then I question the motives. But I can't really rally against teaching children religion altogether. That is a large part of my racial identity. A culture I can still lean on despite the efforts of a monarchy who sought to eradicate it as it was seen as subpar. A way to identify with my family.
Of course I was never taught to just blindly heed the teachings. I was encouraged to question and rebel against them. To take them to task and figure things out for myself. (Though it should be noted that I was also encouraged not to disparage my family's choices as well. I take issue with my ma's philosophies and the religous leaders she obeys. But her choice is her choice.) If you encourage critical thinking and questioning alongside the religious aspect, then I fail to see the issue. But blind faith is at the very least a questionable lesson to impart to our youth.

If I were a Black American child, growing up watching adult Black Americans pray to a beared White American, I'm afraid I would soon believe that at the very least, any beared White American was more special than me. Religion can also be a rape of the mind, especially in young children. Religions would end in a month, if the true image of a Middle Eastern Christ was depicted within the churches today. It is not a cultural heritage, it is an assumed and adopted heritage. For many Black Americans, the church was the only place they could feel protected, and safe from racist bigoted White Americans. We are all born free of any religious dogma, we should die free of any as well?

How can you question anything that is unfalsifiable? There are no right or wrong answers when nothing can be falsified. You are very lucky. Most churches do not encourage it's members to question its religious teachings, and certainly not from children. Blind obedience is not a good idea, no matter what the motives are. Besides the fact that it only leads to dependency, each child is genetically different. An adult should be able to spot these differences, and nurture the positive attributes to encourage the child to reach his/her full potential.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I believe that rights are emergent and contingent upon cultural norms, many of which were conveyed by and inspired by religion. I also believe that people who whine about religion too often demonstrate an unhelpful shallowness.

Coming from someone obviously who has a religion, is that news?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree. I think anything which tends to separate one from others, such as a religious belief, and where such teaching occurs at a young age, should be questioned. We have enough divisions in the world already. Why not just defer such teaching? Perhaps because, as I keep mentioning, it is deception?
You are literally suggesting dividing a household by trying to forbid parents from practicing their religion around young children. You don't like it or don't think kids would understand is not a good reason.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I would consider government prevention of parent's teaching their religious views and values to their children to be one of the most unimaginable overreaches of government and denial of basic rights of parents and families. I generally consider people to be nutty who gather up excessive arms and ammunition and move to the mountains to hide from the government and to prepare for the time when the U.S. government will no longer believe in freedom. But then I hear this kind of talk and ask myself "Is this country ever going to slide so far into secularism and become so liberal and so anti-religious, that it will actually be a crime for parents to teach religion to their children"? This is the stuff futuristic horror movies are made of. I hope the nuts living in the mountains are not right.
I think the nuts hiding in the mountains are about as small and representational as nuts who Agree with state directives like this. I've been a pro-secular atheist since I was in my late teens and I certainly don't agree with this OP. Internet makes nuts more visible I think.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
You are literally suggesting dividing a household by trying to forbid parents from practicing their religion around young children. You don't like it or don't think kids would understand is not a good reason.

I didn't say it would be easy. And no doubt it couldn't be achieved in the home (many homes at least) - but in schools it could.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I think the nuts hiding in the mountains are about as small and representational as nuts who Agree with state directives like this. I've been a pro-secular atheist since I was in my late teens and I certainly don't agree with this OP. Internet makes nuts more visible I think.

"that it will actually be a crime for parents to teach religion to their children" from @Scott C.

I didn't actually say that anywhere did I. All I said was to defer such teaching until an age when they were more capable of understanding and/or resisting such teachings.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
"that it will actually be a crime for parents to teach religion to their children" from @Scott C.

I didn't actually say that anywhere did I. All I said was to defer such teaching until an age when they were more capable of understanding and/or resisting such teachings.
"A crime for parents to teach children under (X) age their religion" would be no less an incredibly unconstitutional overreach of government. So I still agree with Scott.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
"A crime for parents to teach children under (X) age their religion" would be no less an incredibly unconstitutional overreach of government. So I still agree with Scott.

No one is saying it should be enshrined in law - perhaps just changes in policy?
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
The main reason why I oppose the religious teaching of young children (and just the young), especially in faith schools, is because, to me at least, it is a denial of their basic human rights - to grow up free from any particular bias or influence that is not proven to be based in reality or that has rather dubious claims to authority.

In essence, what you object to is the teaching of anything but what you think is true to children. How does that make you any different from a theocracy which forbids the teaching of any belief but that of the officially approved one?

(shrug)

I don't see a difference. I mean, really: what IS the difference between you and, say, Constantine, or...wait...Stalin? They decided that only one religion (or lack of one) should be believed and taught, and did some really nasty enforcing. Lots of dead bodies around in both cases. I believe that Stalin actually killed more people, but then there were more people around TO kill in his case. (shrug again) The reason was the same in both, though; to ensure that only their points of view were allowed.

What you are advocating, basically, is that young children be indoctrinated in YOUR opinions/beliefs about religion rather than anybody else's.

...............and I see absolutely no difference between that position and that of the tyrant who dictates that all children be taught in madrassas or 'Christian bible schools,' or any other religious/non-religious POV.

I can tell you this: if anybody told me that I couldn't teach MY children my deeply held religious beliefs because someone else didn't believe in them and didn't think I had the right to teach anything that he disapproved of, I would....er....not take it well.
 
Last edited:

Scott C.

Just one guy
I think the nuts hiding in the mountains are about as small and representational as nuts who Agree with state directives like this. I've been a pro-secular atheist since I was in my late teens and I certainly don't agree with this OP. Internet makes nuts more visible I think.

Thank you. That's a bit of a relief.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
In essence, what you object to is the teaching of anything but what you think is true to children. How does that make you any different from a theocracy which forbids the teaching of any belief but that of the officially approved one?

(shrug)

I don't see a difference. I mean, really: what IS the difference between you and, say, Constantine, or...wait...Stalin? They decided that only one religion (or lack of one) should be believed and taught, and did some really nasty enforcing. Lots of dead bodies around in both cases. I believe that Stalin actually killed more people, but then there were more people around TO kill in his case. (shrug) The reason was the same in both, though; to ensure that only their points of view were allowed.

What you are advocating, basically, is that young children be indoctrinated in YOUR opinions/beliefs about religion rather than anybody else's.

...............and I see absolutely no difference between that position and that of the tyrant who dictates that all children be taught in madrassas or 'Christian bible schools,' or any other religious/non-religious POV.

I can tell you this: if anybody told me that I couldn't teach MY children my deeply held religious beliefs because someone else didn't believe in them and didn't think I had the right to teach anything that he disapproved of, I would....er....not take it well.

Not at all. Didn't get the gist? It's all about children having information of a quite subjective nature imposed upon them when they are essentially not capable of resisting such. It's not about stopping all religious education - just deferring it to an appropriate age.
 
Top