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

[Mock Turtle]

Nope. They get pictures and lessons on Jesus whenever I as the father deem it to be right.

You think I wouldn't expect a lot of resistance to my proposal?

 

[dianaiad]

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 have to admit...sometimes when I hear the sort of thing expressed in the OP, I wonder if my uncle still has that 40 acres up in northern Utah....

I can't help but consider: this is not a unique POV, the one being expressed here. I've run across it many, many times, and I honestly don't get it. Would ANY of these people propose that...say...it would be a good idea to pass a law saying that all young children have to be taught evangelical Christianity, even if their parents are Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or...pick something?

What the heck is the difference here between what the OP is proposing, and the above?

Because I don't see one.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

So....while the children are tiny, their parents cannot actually PRACTICE their beliefs, but must rather live YOUR beliefs, instead?

What IS it about this idea that seems to make ordinarily smart people lose all sense? All you are doing is proposing that these young children be taught YOUR beliefs rather than their parent's.

The thing is, children grow up and change their minds about religion all the time. I have five kids. Not all of them follow my beliefs. I'm sad about that, but it is their choice and they were perfectly capable of making it EVEN THOUGH I TAUGHT THEM MY BELIEFS WHEN THEY WERE YOUNG.

What I see happening here is that...it's not that you want to remove the religious indoctrination. You just want to change what indoctrination they are exposed to.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I have to admit...sometimes when I hear the sort of thing expressed in the OP, I wonder if my uncle still has that 40 acres up in northern Utah....

I can't help but consider: this is not a unique POV, the one being expressed here. I've run across it many, many times, and I honestly don't get it. Would ANY of these people propose that...say...it would be a good idea to pass a law saying that all young children have to be taught evangelical Christianity, even if their parents are Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or...pick something?

What the heck is the difference here between what the OP is proposing, and the above?

Because I don't see one.

Perhaps if you saw the world from a non-religious perspective you might understand. We have to live in a world permeated with religious beliefs - 85% or so do have one - and where we have very little say in such things - but we continually see the consequences of so many different religious beliefs - not notice the conflict? There - does that help?

 

[Mock Turtle]

So....while the children are tiny, their parents cannot actually PRACTICE their beliefs, but must rather live YOUR beliefs, instead?

What IS it about this idea that seems to make ordinarily smart people lose all sense? All you are doing is proposing that these young children be taught YOUR beliefs rather than their parent's.

The thing is, children grow up and change their minds about religion all the time. I have five kids. Not all of them follow my beliefs. I'm sad about that, but it is their choice and they were perfectly capable of making it EVEN THOUGH I TAUGHT THEM MY BELIEFS WHEN THEY WERE YOUNG.

What I see happening here is that...it's not that you want to remove the religious indoctrination. You just want to change what indoctrination they are exposed to.

Coming from a Mormon, I'm hardly surprised you react so. Perhaps the major religions might not be so hostile?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Perhaps we can talk about soft bigotry at some other time ...

 

[Truly Enlightened]

There is no such right for reasons already explained. Religion isn't monolithic so anything can be part of religious belief. Nothing would get done because anything we teach a child, including helpful things as 'don't murder', could be construed as 'religious' even though the same belief is present in non-religioud. Further...

That's not why we don't allow sexual assault on children. It's because we have tangible evidence that it causes severe injury to the child. There is no such evidence that religious teachings, as a whole, do that. Trying to just get rid of all religious influence in children's life is specious and unconstructive. Instead, focus on the things that have been shown to cause severe injury to children. Such as mistreatment of homosexuality and transgender in some religions.

Can't we as parents teach or explain all these things, without invoking the supernatural? Can't we teach children about real things, and not teach them about unreal things? Or if we do, it is only to nurture a child's imagination. Should we teach them about heaven and hell, love for an imaginary father, that they are sinful and must repent for their sins, always listen to adults because they know better, or that we and everything else was created by a God?

Religions should in no way be construed as being real or tangible. It is only a belief that a lot of people believe in, for only reasons they want to believe in.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Perhaps we can talk about soft bigotry at some other time ...

Admitting to it are we?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No, because there are several problems with the argumentation:

• "Religious teaching" is an extremely heterogenous category. There are tens and thousands of different religious traditions with various teachings. When we get right down to it, anything can be a "religious teaching" if it is taught within the context of a religion. In order for the argument to have traction, specific teachings need to be named and identified.
• Defining "reality" is a philosophical question. While it helps to clarify you're interested in teachings regarding "reality," it also introduces this secondary problem. Nobody has the right or authority to decide what "reality" is for everyone, and attempting to do so creates the same kinds of biases you're concerned about from "religious teachings."
• Who and what is an authority is a cultural or personal matter. You also clarify you're concerned about claims from dubious authorities. As with the above, the trouble is nobody gets to decide who or what is an authority for everyone, and doing so is also inevitably as biased as "religious teachings."
• There is no such thing as bias-free. To cut to the chase, let's just acknowledge that bias-free scenarios are not really a thing.

For an argument like this to have any traction, it needs to get specific with what teachings it's talking about, and how they are delivered. I'm aware of a court case where a gentleman was sued for indoctrinating a youth into a cult of one, which produced diagnosable mental illnesses that significantly disrupted that person's life. Things like that are abusive. But blanket statements targeting "religious teachings" are not only useless, they're counterproductive and needlessly hostile. Whether a teaching is "religious" or not is entirely irrelevant. They key factor is whether or not the indoctrination results in clinical mental health conditions.

There are some things, however, that are far more removed from reality than others. "Gravity" for instance, simply cannot be removed from reality. So teaching a child the finer points of gravity should not be considered a thing that has "bias." Only if the teacher were lying about some aspect of gravity would there be some form of "bias" or agenda even involved. Gravity itself actually becomes much the authority for articles of knowledge concerning gravity, and there are no philosophical questions that allow any of us to "bend the rules" of gravity.

The further you move from something as objective as gravity, the more gray-area you are in with regards to whether what you are teaching is setting up an errant course for the developing child. My thoughts are that the OP is referencing "religion" (which, lacking the qualifiers you [rightly] requested, I would take to encompass those religions that patently offer themselves as "the truth") to be on that end of the scale furthest from any absolutes, and therefore some of the most volatile of those that end up being among the more "standard" teachings to children.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There are some things, however, that are far more removed from reality than others. "Gravity" for instance, simply cannot be removed from reality. So teaching a child the finer points of gravity should not be considered a thing that has "bias." Only if the teacher were lying about some aspect of gravity would there be some form of "bias" or agenda even involved. Gravity itself actually becomes much the authority for articles of knowledge concerning gravity, and there are no philosophical questions that allow any of us to "bend the rules" of gravity.

The further you move from something as objective as gravity, the more gray-area you are in with regards to whether what you are teaching is setting up an errant course for the developing child. My thoughts are that the OP is referencing "religion" (which, lacking the qualifiers you [rightly] requested, I would take to encompass those religions that patently offer themselves as "the truth") to be on that end of the scale furthest from any absolutes, and therefore some of the most volatile of those that end up being among the more "standard" teachings to children.

This is quite fair too. It would be quite tricky to implement no doubt and I don't really have any particular solutions - just the belief that injustices are going on with the current system - of teaching certain beliefs to children that they usually just have to accept on trust. And it's also possibly an abuse of power as much as it is of force-feeding information.

 

[Vee]

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.

Since not all religions are the same governments can't come up with a "one size fits all" solution to address that problem. It is true that a lot of parents are somehow abusing their children with their religious beliefs but the same could be said about other subjects. What about parents feeding their children fast food? or parents refusing to vaccinate their children, letting them stay up too late and not getting enough rest, etc. There are many forms of potential abuse but how can that all be regulated ?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Can't we as parents teach or explain all these things, without invoking the supernatural? Can't we teach children about real things, and not teach them about unreal things? Or if we do, it is only to nurture a child's imagination. Should we teach them about heaven and hell, love for an imaginary father, that they are sinful and must repent for their sins, always listen to adults because they know better, or that we and everything else was created by a God?

Religions should in no way be construed as being real or tangible. It is only a belief that a lot of people believe in, for only reasons they want to believe in.

Religion isn't as narrow as your charicature of Christianity. I would teach my children that going around telling people that their god isn't real is just being a dick.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Since not all religions are the same governments can't come up with a "one size fits all" solution to address that problem. It is true that a lot of parents are somehow abusing their children with their religious beliefs but the same could be said about other subjects. What about parents feeding their children fast food? or parents refusing to vaccinate their children, letting them stay up too late and not getting enough rest, etc. There are many forms of potential abuse but how can that all be regulated ?

Quite right. As I've mentioned, I have no particular solutions, just a really passionate belief that some things are so wrong with the current situation. I suspect that children will be accorded more rights in the future - after adult females have finally managed to obtain all the rights they so deserve - but it might be a long time coming and it certainly won't be easy. I just think this is one such area.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Religion isn't as narrow as your charicature of Christianity. I would teach my children that going around telling people that their god isn't real is just being a dick.

What do many of the religious say about the non-religious?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What do many of the religious say about the non-religious?

Nothing that would make being a dick a justifiable response. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Let's try a different tack on this. How would any of those who have a religious belief like it if their child was forced to have another religion taught to them (perhaps indoctrinated) and one with which they disagreed vehemently? This might happen for example if a marriage or partnership split up and where the one with a different religion had custody of the child. No problem with this?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Though I agree to an extent, I do not see how it would be enforced. And having the government take over such early education may be far worse than the religious beliefs instilled by a child's parents. I would rather stick with the evil that we are familiar with than to try to strike out on a rather risky venture.

Yeah I agree with that. Usually these kind of things turn into slippery slopes.

As long as unsubstantiated religious beliefs stays out of publicly-funded school curriculums with some exceptions made of course such as parochial schools and so forth, parents ought to have the right to raise their own children as they see fit whether or not I personally would agree with them or not. Kids obviously grow up, develop minds of their own, and they will find for themselves whether something is true or not to them.

 

[Nous]

Mathematics is a provable scientific method of inquiry, that is based in reality, and is used to explain and verify natural phenomena.

You needn't try to persuade of the validity of the thesis of mathematical realism. It is deduced by the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument. (See: Scientific Realism Begets Mathematical Realism) I merely noted that lots of people consider mathematics to be something fabricated by humans--exactly like lots of people believe that religious ideas are something made up by humans.

Any subject matter that can be explained and verified, that can develop and cultivate the child's natural curiosity and critical thinking, would not be considered child abuse.

So you don't consider the inquiry into religions such as Christianity, Islam or Buddhism or any knowledge acquired from such inquiry to be "abuse". I don't either.

Quantum Theory and Quantum Mechanics are the most provable theories in science today, but its concepts alone are hard enough for adults to conceptualize, let alone a child. Therefore teaching a child the principles of QM would be irrelevant not abusive.

So you don't argue that the interpretations of QM have been "proven to be based in reality".

Newtonian physics are also based in reality.

I don't even know what the phrase "proven to be based in reality" is supposed to mean. Define that phrase, and provide your proof regarding Newtonian mechanics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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 may be guilty of abuse so I hope you don't call child protective services, but when my children were little, I made them do certain things:

* Go to bed at decent hours
* Flush the toilet
* Eat mostly healthy meals
* Brush their teeth
* Read the Bible
* Choose for themselves what they believed about Jesus Christ and salvation, since mother and I believe in free will

 

[Prestor John]

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?

Bringing up your child in a religious environment in no way negates their ability to reason or usurp their right to freedom of choice.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but in the U.S. religious freedom is considered an innate natural God-given right.

Stop trying to use our children as leverage to mask the agenda we all already know you have.

You believe that all religion should be destroyed.

You don't care about anyone's children. You don't care about anyone's rights.

You just want to destroy what you hate, fear and can't comprehend.