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

[Nous]

Why not. You tell me any mathematics (arithmetic) that you have a bone to pick with that was taught at primary/elementary school.

I noted that lots of people consider mathematics to be something fabricated by humans. Lots of people similarly consider religious ideas to be made up by humans. What distinction do you make between the study of mathematics and the study of religions?

I take it you agree that exposing children to claims that mental disorders are due to “biochemical imbalances” would constitute “abuse,”

Isn't that a bit advanced for young children?

There are TV commercials in the US that claim that mental disorders are or may be the product of "chemical imbalances". At what age should kids be exposed to such commercials so that it won't constitute "abuse"?

I take it you agree that no interpretation of quantum mechanics has been “proven to be based in reality,” and therefore teaching children about these would be “abuse”.

Has Newtonian mechanics been “proven to be based in reality”?

Ditto with these. Stop being silly.

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

What do you mean by the phrase "proven to be based in reality"? If parents encouraged their "young child" to read, to read about or watch movies of Alice in Wonderland, would that be "abuse" according to whatever you mean by "proven to be based in reality"? Has Alice in Wonderland been "proven to be based in reality"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

Teaching religion to the young is not equivalent to forcing the young to embrace a religion. You're moving the goal post with all the finesse of a childish temper tantrum.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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.

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

My take on it is that far too often abuse of parental power is presented as "religious education" when it probably does not qualify as such.

The main remedy is probably religious education in the proper sense - with an emphasis on the presentation of the actual variety of beliefs and stances that exists around us.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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?

I don't have a religious belief, but if some of my family wanted to take my kid to a holiday mass or a bar mitzvah or a shrine or whatever, I wouldn't care. Because I'll have taught them that going doesn't mean they have to believe, and that learning multiple perspectives is great.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm pretty sympathetic to the notion that at least some religiously motivated child rearing practices are abusive and ought to be outlawed, but I certainly do not think the grounds for criminalizing practices should be that they teach children to believe in things that don't exist. If that were a grounds for criminalization that were consistently applied, then you'd have to outlaw all sorts of common child rearing practices -- from teaching kids to believe in Santa Claus to teaching kids false political notions. The only people who'd benefit in the end would be the privately owned for profit prisons.

 

[SomeRandom]

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.

Well there are depictions of Jesus that are black. So why not show said black child those instead? And why does it have to be "the white bearded man?" Pretty sure other deities exist, just saying.

And I'm a born Hindu and half Fijian Indian. Not sure my family's religion would end in a month if "the true Jesus was exposed." Since he's pretty inconsequential to us. You realise there's other religions that exist outside of Christianity and even the Abrahamics, right?

Also it is rather hard to seperate culture and religion when it makes up all of your folklore practically. So, are you suggesting that my family should abandon our cultural heritage? Then the white man wins!! No but in all seriousness, religion is usually more akin to philosophical ponderings and discussions than going to church for us. And just because I was taught my family's religion doesn't mean I'm obligated to follow it. Although it is intrinsically tied with family heritage. So are you saying I should reject my family?

Don't disagree that parents should nurture the child to its full potential. Of course a parent should. And if they believe that morality comes from their religion, then obviously they would teach that. But religion does not necessarily mean fanatical Christianity. That's very myopic and kind of short sighted. Besides I know plenty of highly educated laid back Christians who constantly question the faith. And were all actively encouraged to do so from their respective churches. Religion does not equal dumb.

Though I guess it can go the opposite way. Depends on the culture and religion in question.

 

[SomeRandom]

OK but can't the religious bit just wait until they are older - not sure exactly what age would be appropriate really - not being a teacher and all. And the worst for me are the faith schools where the kids will hardly get a smattering of any other religions to compare with the one drummed into them.

Well religious schools are annoying I agree. Get all the funding too, the jerks.
I don't know man. A parent has every right to teach their child whatever they want. You start inching into that territory from a religious angle and you're no better than a theocracy really.
Also why is always so black and white?
Religion does not necessarily mean rigid dogma. It's not fundementalist necessarily. For my family it is literally eastern philosophy.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

What makes you think I haven't?

But what is the difference between seeing the world from a 'non-religious' viewpoint (that is, no religious belief should be allowed or taught) and seeing the world from a specifically religious viewpoint (that is, only one religious belief should be allowed or taught)?

Because I don't see one.

They are precisely the same attitude.

MY point of view is that parents should be allowed to decide how their babies and young children are educated and what religion will be taught to them...or whether no religion at all should be taught to them.

I don't have the right to decide for any parent how they should teach something as vital to their well being as their view on religion, pro, con or what brand.

Not. My. Job.

And not yours.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Well, now, I don't quite know what to do with that one.

What do you mean 'hostile?" You are quite right; my belief system DOES greatly influence my position in this matter. After all, we are one of the very few religions...and I believe we may be unique among Christian religions...that have freedom of religion encoded in our scriptures. Being allowed, and allowing others, to worship as we wish is rather important to us.

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Yeah, it's important to us.

Why do I have the feeling that this isn't what you meant?

 

[Baroodi]

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?

this is normal even for animal natures. a cub or a kid grows under the auspice of his parents until it is able to take its own independent course in life. it needs to follow instructions which are seen the best for his future before he/she is able to make free choices.

 

[Scott C.]

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

Huh? I think the Mormons, the Catholics, the Baptists, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindu's, the Buddhists... are for the most part, on the same page here. And Americans, for the most part, are on the same page. You're challenging the basis on which America was built. You're cutting to the heart of what it means to be a free people.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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? who said anything about "going around telling people that their god isn't real"? I thought we were talking about taking advantage of a child's natural trust in adults. I thought we were talking about giving our children the best rational/realistic explanation of natural phenomena, without invoking the supernatural. I thought we were talking about protecting our defenceless children from over-zealous religious predators, that would destroy the natural spirit of a child, and have them standing on city corners quote-mining and spewing out unfalsifiable religious sound-bites. My interest is what is in the best interest of the child, not to placate the fears of adults that one day the child might expose their belief for what it is.

I couldn't care less if adults choose to believe that Casper is truly the friendly ghost. If I were going around telling people that THEIR PERSONAL God was not real, then I would be a dick! But I don't.That would be an exercise in futility. How are my examples inconsistent with the teachings in Christian Beliefs? Or, did you want me to include the parts that are real and beneficial, just to give the perception of balance? Sorry, that's just not how I roll.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, isn't it a shame how religions just take over so much of our (not mine) lives.

It's clearly taken over.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

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.

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.

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

I apologize for coming to the wrong conclusion. Many people want to believe so badly that something exists that is greater then themselves, that the belief itself becomes real due to the "neural plasticity" of the brain. They need to believe that an all-powerful, all-knowing super daddy will reward them with eternal life, as long as they obey and commit to pious servitude. I have no problem with whatever works for them. I simply believe in the value of the human spirit, human strength, human determination, and the human condition itself. I don't believe we should ever replace faith and trust in ourselves, with faith and trust in any mythical character or ancient belief. Sometimes the concept of responsibility can become lost, and the blame game can begin.

Actively seeking knowledge about other culturally created phenomena does not represent "child abuse". But sending a 4 or 5 yo away to camps that teach unverifiable and unfalsifiable myths and superstitions, is tantamount to "child abuse". Since children do not actively seek out knowledge from these religious systems, I'm assuming you mean adults. From a cultural perspective, I have no problems with acquiring religious knowledge.

You stated "Has mathematics been “proven to be based in reality? A lot of people claim that mathematics is just something humans have made up". I assume that you mean "explained based on observation and experimentation of any natural phenomena". Therefore if you jump out a 2 story window, or step in front of a moving vehicle, or toss a baseball, science can use math/physics to explain with the highest amount of certainty, exactly what will happen to you and why. Therefore it's principles are based in the physical reality.

Quantum reality is different from Newton reality(tiny to big). So far no one can connect the two mathematically/physically(Theory of Everything). Both QM and Classical Physics have their own "kryptonite". QM has its Uncertainty Principle, no Gravity, and the Duality of Matter. Classical Physics has its Theory of Relativity and Quantum Gravity. Both are exclusive to their own reality. One day we may find a way to bridge this gap. I don't see the relevance of why providing any mathematical proofs in Newtonian Physics or Quantum Physics, would have anything to do with why children should not be indoctrinated with religious beliefs and ideologies. Was there some proof in particular that you did not understand?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well there are depictions of Jesus that are black. So why not show said black child those instead? And why does it have to be "the white bearded man?" Pretty sure other deities exist, just saying.

And I'm a born Hindu and half Fijian Indian. Not sure my family's religion would end in a month if "the true Jesus was exposed." Since he's pretty inconsequential to us. You realise there's other religions that exist outside of Christianity and even the Abrahamics, right?

Also it is rather hard to seperate culture and religion when it makes up all of your folklore practically. So, are you suggesting that my family should abandon our cultural heritage? Then the white man wins!! No but in all seriousness, religion is usually more akin to philosophical ponderings and discussions than going to church for us. And just because I was taught my family's religion doesn't mean I'm obligated to follow it. Although it is intrinsically tied with family heritage. So are you saying I should reject my family?

Don't disagree that parents should nurture the child to its full potential. Of course a parent should. And if they believe that morality comes from their religion, then obviously they would teach that. But religion does not necessarily mean fanatical Christianity. That's very myopic and kind of short sighted. Besides I know plenty of highly educated laid back Christians who constantly question the faith. And were all actively encouraged to do so from their respective churches. Religion does not equal dumb.

Though I guess it can go the opposite way. Depends on the culture and religion in question.

Firstly, I was speaking about how Jesus is portrayed by the major religions in the US. He is portrayed in a multicultural society, as an image of a Bearded White American Male. Not a female, not a Hindi, not a Fijian, a Black, Chinese, American Indian, or even the family pet. Since all religions and images are man-made and culturally-specific, my point was what would happen if the images of Jesus were not culturally specific to that culture, but historically specific. I may have misspoke prematurally that ALL religions would end in a month. I believe that humans would simply make up new religions, or just paint over the images. There are many attributes and aspects of culture, that have nothing to do with religion. Non-verbal communication(shaking hands), non-verbal gestures, cultural symbolisms, language(written and spoken), levels of inherited sexism, norms, rituals and ceremonies, values, individualism, work ethics and artifacts, are all also a part of what we call culture. So NO it is not hard to separate culture from religion. Most people do it everyday of their lives. What percentage of your daily life is preoccupied with religion? And NO I'm not suggesting that you abandon or ignore your family heritage. There are many aspects of the Fijian culture that you should embrace(as mentioned). But like the Aboriginal culture in Australia, there are many aspects you should not embrace(alcoholism). I'm also sure that the Fijian culture will not totally collapse if they stopped worshipping a bearded White American, or not watch the "Passion of the Christ".

All children should be allowed to reach their own potentials. That's a no-brainer. Religious beliefs are distractions, with very little practical applications in reality. I would certainly begin to pray for any child of any parent, that applies the morality of the Bible to any child. It is probably the most immoral book ever written by man. If it were a movie, children would be banned from watching it. I'm sure there are adults that are encouraged to question their faith, but that's not what this is about. We are talking about CHILDREN, not adults. Laws should be imposed to protect children from the POSSIBILITY of an overzealous religious predators that wants to infect the minds of children with religious ideology, dogma, and myths. What are some application of religions that is not just a mental constructs? I believe that it certainly adds to the "dumbing-down" of Americans.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Well there are depictions of Jesus that are black. So why not show said black child those instead? And why does it have to be "the white bearded man?" Pretty sure other deities exist, just saying.

And I'm a born Hindu and half Fijian Indian. Not sure my family's religion would end in a month if "the true Jesus was exposed." Since he's pretty inconsequential to us. You realise there's other religions that exist outside of Christianity and even the Abrahamics, right?

Also it is rather hard to seperate culture and religion when it makes up all of your folklore practically. So, are you suggesting that my family should abandon our cultural heritage? Then the white man wins!! No but in all seriousness, religion is usually more akin to philosophical ponderings and discussions than going to church for us. And just because I was taught my family's religion doesn't mean I'm obligated to follow it. Although it is intrinsically tied with family heritage. So are you saying I should reject my family?

Don't disagree that parents should nurture the child to its full potential. Of course a parent should. And if they believe that morality comes from their religion, then obviously they would teach that. But religion does not necessarily mean fanatical Christianity. That's very myopic and kind of short sighted. Besides I know plenty of highly educated laid back Christians who constantly question the faith. And were all actively encouraged to do so from their respective churches. Religion does not equal dumb.

Though I guess it can go the opposite way. Depends on the culture and religion in question.

Just to add. Going to church is a ceremonial ritual that is a part of your culture. But the believing in what is being taught in the church, without evidence, is part of your character. You are not your parents. You are you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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

Good for you. No doubt there will be many who do the same and many who tend to go a lot further, and my beef is mainly with religious education in schools since it is, as mentioned by many, almost impossible to legislate or enforce anything in the home. But the question remains - is it actually abuse (in the home too) when the children essentially have no defences against such teaching - where that tends to be a one-sided view with regards a particular faith?

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Quite. But who gave anyone such a right - other people? Especially those of us who have some doubt as to the existence of said God.

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.

Oooh! 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. 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.

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.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I noted that lots of people consider mathematics to be something fabricated by humans. Lots of people similarly consider religious ideas to be made up by humans. What distinction do you make between the study of mathematics and the study of religions?

You really will be nit-picking if you regard something that can demonstrably be proved - most arithmetic certainly and a lot of mathematics - with almost any religious belief. You know they are nowhere near comparable,

There are TV commercials in the US that claim that mental disorders are or may be the product of "chemical imbalances". At what age should kids be exposed to such commercials so that it won't constitute "abuse"?

Again this is diversion. The topic is religious teaching not about all the other influences that affect children. As a matter of fact many commercials are restricted when aimed at children - many Scandinavian countries for example - and perhaps many other countries could learn form them - just as smacking has been banned by many too.

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

The difference being, these are unlikely to be taught to very young children whose brains are still developing and have no where near the abilities of even teenagers.

What do you mean by the phrase "proven to be based in reality"? If parents encouraged their "young child" to read, to read about or watch movies of Alice in Wonderland, would that be "abuse" according to whatever you mean by "proven to be based in reality"? Has Alice in Wonderland been "proven to be based in reality"?

As far as I'm aware, there is no intent in Alice in Wonderland to instil a fundamental belief system into a child - which I believe is the aim of most religious teaching. Not so?