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

[SomeRandom]

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.

Just to reiterate, Christianity does not equal all religions.
In fact Jesus isn't actually relevant to any religion outside of Christianity, nor is a Bearded white guy in the sky for that matter. Well maybe to Norse Pagans.You realize there's religions that exclusively worship the lady in the sky, right? Hell the Jains directly reject the notion of a creator God, though theism specifically might vary among the practitioners themselves.
But sure. The depiction of Jesus depends entirely on culture and the geographical location. And yeah, people would probably just paint over any and all image. I don't disagree with the notion that people make religion into whatever they want it to be, nor do I disagree that religion is man made.
But you know, so is electricity and I like my air con during Aussie summers.

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.

When all of that is directly informed by the proceeding religion for over 6000 years, it absolutely is hard to disentangle the two. Especially when you add in the colonial hangover. Indians greet each other with folded hands, where did that come from? Our religion or the Brits forcing our hand, er so to speak.
Our select group of Hindus literally greet each other with "Ram Ram" which translates to "hello" (Ram being a sort of Jesus figure for that group.) A greeting, mind you, recognized by anyone familiar with Fijian Indian culture. How do you disentangle religious influence or vice versa from that cultural gesture?
How do you separate the cultural notion of duty, when it is directly informed by Dharma, which roughly translates to words such as "duty" in English? I mean good god, even the Western Literary Canon. If you want to know the real crux to it, the real bones of our stories, you have to read the Bible!
That's not just me saying that either, that's from actual English professors and even many a Lit major, regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof.)

But sure, inherent sexism, racism, homophobia etc should be disavowed regardless of its origins. This is the 21st century and we're modern progressive types. Well some of us.

. What percentage of your daily life is preoccupied with religion?

Not a whole lot, to be honest. I mean I'm not particularly devout, but I do try to live by the "code" as it were. People IRL act incredulously when learning I belong to a "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".

Again with this insistence that there is nothing outside of Christianity. Fijian culture is NOT Christian, Christ, what is your obsession with Jesus anyway?
Hindu, remember? Jesus is inconsequential to my religion. Religion as a whole doesn't revolve around Jesus, you know? Damn son, even Ned Flanders is less obsessed with Jesus than you.
Also I don't know how many Fijians specifically watch Passion of the Christ. Too busy with developing country problems and weather. They're currently flooded. And yes, we are absolutely concerned about our relies living there.
Maybe you should expand your reach a little, all I'm saying.

And we all reject outdated or negative aspects of our respective cultural heritages. It's called being the youth.

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.

Well I have my own gripes with the Bible. But we have many movies and books dedicated to the Bible that children interact with even now. Even Dreamworks did their own 10 Commandments remake.

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.

I think your Constitution is a little more fervent in the freedom of religion clause than my country's. So I don't know how.........legal your suggestion even is.
How about meditation and emotional skills? A better grasp on philosophical concepts? A sense of familial bonding?
Also you're the one apparently incapable of acknowledging that religion is not just an overblown caricature of fundamentalist Christianity, not me. Since you use the word religion to specifically mean the type of Christian mocked by those on the Fundies Say the Darnedest Things web forum.
I mean I sometimes troll there myself, it's fun. But that's hardly representative of Christianity as a whole, not to mention NON Christian Religions.

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.

Uhh that would be temple, dude, not church but temple. NOT A CHRISTIAN.
And I know this already. I go whenever I damned well please. Or in the mood for free food. Or when a CULTURAL festival is happening and I have to go out of CULTURAL obligation. Like Diwali, which is literally our version of New Years. What's your point?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course the parents have the right to screw up their children as much as they are capable of achieving. I once heard a comedian say, "You are not like your parents, YOU ARE YOUR PARENTS!" What a scary thought.

Every child has a metaphorical fall from grace where they stop seeing themselves as part of their parents but a separate being. At that point, many people will hate their parents. The reason is our parents are responsible for ALL our weaknesses. We love them for our strengths and we hate them for our weaknesses. I do not believe there is any right way of being when it comes to human character configurations. What most people do is at some point they mature enough to be able to forgive their parents for their weaknesses and just love their parents for who their parents are as people. Sometimes it's a long path.

I do not really agree with your line of logic. Stupid people having stupid beliefs are necessary for understanding what is NOT stupid. I don't think it matters if stupid parents abuse their children with stupid beliefs. Eventually, children become smarter than their parents.

I don't think religions will ever phase out. Science is great for explaining how the Universe works. Science is great for using language, usually mathematics, to represent nature's behaviors. What science is not good at is explaining why we are here and what it all means. Religions will continue to exist to provide people a reason to participate in their lives having what people considered to be sacred or holy implications. Sure it may be all gibberish self-delusion. But what difference does it make if everything in the Universe is just meaningless patterns of swirling energy floating around. The people might has well have a sense of sacred and divine meaning in their lives.

Besides, why do you care what stupid people believe. It's not like it hurts you in anyway. If you think it does, then maybe you are not so smart as you imagine yourself to be.

It's not really about me though is it - it's about the fundamental rights of the child - as in smacking, male circumcision, etc., perhaps we should be moving away from seeing children as possessions of the parents and giving them more rights?

 

[Mock Turtle]

When would the apropriate age be to teach someone about a religion be, then? 12? 16? 18?

Difficult. Probably at least 12 but I am not a teacher and would bow to greater knowledge in this regard.

 

[SomeRandom]

It's not really about me though is it - it's about the fundamental rights of the child - as in smacking, male circumcision, etc., perhaps we should be moving away from seeing children as possessions of the parents and giving them more rights?

I absolutely agree with recognizing children's rights more. But forgive me, but denying them their family's religious upbringing is an old colonial tactic to demonize and control people. Aren't you sort of advocating the same thing (except the demonizing part), albeit more mild? Those of us who constantly hear of the white man beating out the religion of our ancestors, well can't help but do a double take at anyone suggesting that parents should not teach their children their own religious beliefs. Granted I don't know many people, even Christians, who start particularly young, like you seem to be familiar with.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Why do children need a "defense" against brushing their teeth and flushing toilets and many other things that their parents want for them? Why should the state intervene to teach my children contrary to how I see fit, please?

 

[Quintessence]

But forgive me, but denying them their family's religious upbringing is an old colonial tactic to demonize and control people.

Dang, I had forgotten about that until you mentioned it. It's still going on now, with Native American children in the United States being taken from their families being put into foster care to rip them from their cultural traditions (Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families). It's sick.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well people obsess over trivial matters. Religion can inform a person's every decision sure. But so can lots of things, like fandoms for example. I've seen quite a few......questionable decisions born from the love of a movie, TV show or even book. It's all about balance. Anything can be taken to the extreme and the kids usually have to come along for the ride.
With kids, well they have to start somewhere. Are you really saying that starting out a flat atheist is superior than starting out a One Buddhist?
Kids have to be guided somewhere. Whether that is the hallowed halls of intellectual stimulation or the Church library.

I would have thought there were better areas to spend in promoting thinking and guidance - such as morality itself, thinking skills, problem-solving (with relation to others), the place of oneself in society with responsibilities and obligations, etc., that is, anything that contributes to a child becoming a normal social person and not relying on any religious belief to do so. I don't know what is on the curricula these days.

I guess I only really take issue if religion is forceful. But that's only really in the more extreme sects of Christianity. Dharmics don't tend to prostelyze, even to their own progeny.
Pagans seem to be harmless one with nature types. (My apologies to any Pagan for such a generalisation. Just a little levity.)
Buddhists seem to be all about meditation and calming non violent methods.
Hindus seem to want an excuse to feed you and to have a festival. And I feel like being Jewish seems to be just as integral as one's race.
Sometimes religion crops up when raising a kid. It's inevitable. It's something people want to pass on. A legacy of sorts.
If open mindedness and independent thought is stressed, then what's the problem?
Isn't wanting kids to have your worldview specifically (even as a starting point) the same as adults teaching their religion to their offspring? Is one really superior to the other? You want them to have your worldview, your experience. But is that really your call to make?
Although I agree about being wary of indoctrination and wanting it to subside.


(And for the record, I'm not suggesting that atheism is a religion or akin to it.)

I suppose my main argument relates to schooling since in the home it really is up to the parents and any kind of code or law could hardly be enforced - and I don't propose any such laws. I would still maintain that much that goes on in the home could be considered as abuse though. As the spectrum is so wide, what might be abuse to one would not be to others. I understand that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That's.... not at all what I was getting at there.

It was an illustration of how anything can be a "religious" teaching. It's definitely not a shame when one lives one's life in accordance with one's religion.

The point is though, as many Muslims will no doubt testify, that religion is such an essential part of their lives in virtually every aspect, that it is a very important part of their being. So why not get it right and allow children the right to find this out for themselves - unless one does just see children as the property of the parents. Which I don't.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why do children need a "defense" against brushing their teeth and flushing toilets and many other things that their parents want for them? Why should the state intervene to teach my children contrary to how I see fit, please?

That's not relevant, like many other things. Religion is a very different sphere of knowledge and being. Have you not noticed the conflict it often gives rise to? Religious beliefs are almost unique in this respect. People often die for or over such beliefs.

 

[Quintessence]

The point is though, as many Muslims will no doubt testify, that religion is such an essential part of their lives in virtually every aspect, that it is a very important part of their being. So why not get it right and allow children the right to find this out for themselves - unless one does just see children as the property of the parents. Which I don't.

I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, though I'm too aware that the "let children find things out for themselves" approach is often inappropriate. Guidance is important when learning about something for humans in general, but especially for children who have not quite reached certain benchmarks in cognitive development (or who might endanger themselves if not supervised).

There is a way to do the "find it for yourself" with guidance, though. That's basically what Unitarian Universalism is. That said, I can't muster the idea of forcing everyone to adopt UU methods of religious education. It'd still be ripping children out of their cultural upbringing, and I'm too much of a pluralist who values diversity to condone that.

 

[SomeRandom]

I would have thought there were better areas to spend in promoting thinking and guidance - such as morality itself, thinking skills, problem-solving (with relation to others), the place of oneself in society with responsibilities and obligations, etc., that is, anything that contributes to a child becoming a normal social person and not relying on any religious belief to do so. I don't know what is on the curricula these days.

If a religious person is teaching a child, why wouldn't they frame it in a religious way? Isn't that like expecting a scientist to teach science like an artistic mode of expression?
People who are religious usually teach what they know to kids. Unsurprisingly that tends to be in the context of religion. If you can prove every single religious teaching hinders a child, then perhaps you'd have something. Otherwise you're rallying against something innocuous by pointing towards extreme examples. Also what about philosophies? What about things like veganism? A vegan diet might not be the best for the child. Should all parents consult dietitian experts before feeding their kids?

I just don't like this restriction upon a parent's right to raise their child free from interference. We're back into 1984 territory. If a person is abusing their child (and you can prove it is an abusive practice) then by all means, call the cops and intervene. But are you telling me that some random Sikh telling their kid to not belittle other beliefs is abusive?
Such a teaching can be linked back to their own religious understanding, it could be argued.

I suppose my main argument relates to schooling since in the home it really is up to the parents and any kind of code or law could hardly be enforced - and I don't propose any such laws. I would still maintain that much that goes on in the home could be considered as abuse though. As the spectrum is so wide, what might be abuse to one would not be to others. I understand that.

Oh well in that case, I agree. School is not the place to teach an exclusive religion. If religion has to be in a school setting, it should be a comparative religious class.

 

[SomeRandom]

Dang, I had forgotten about that until you mentioned it. It's still going on now, with Native American children in the United States being taken from their families being put into foster care to rip them from their cultural traditions (Native Foster Care: Lost Children, Shattered Families). It's sick.

Oh that's despicable. We're still reeling from our own "stolen generation." And then there's my own culture's grievances on top of that. But to have it still happening is sickening.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, though I'm too aware that the "let children find things out for themselves" approach is often inappropriate. Guidance is important when learning about something for humans in general, but especially for children who have not quite reached certain benchmarks in cognitive development (or who might endanger themselves if not supervised).

There is a way to do the "find it for yourself" with guidance, though. That's basically what Unitarian Universalism is. That said, I can't muster the idea of forcing everyone to adopt UU methods of religious education. It'd still be ripping children out of their cultural upbringing, and I'm too much of a pluralist who values diversity to condone that.

I do realise the cultural aspects and that what I am saying isn't likely to come to pass in the future or ever. I think children will get more rights though and the first to fall might be faith schools. Just think of the more appropriate lessons that could replace religious education and that might benefit all members of the class - when often many, like me, were drifting off into reverie or the land of nod most of the time.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If a religious person is teaching a child, why wouldn't they frame it in a religious way? Isn't that like expecting a scientist to teach science like an artistic mode of expression?
People who are religious usually teach what they know to kids. Unsurprisingly that tends to be in the context of religion. If you can prove every single religious teaching hinders a child, then perhaps you'd have something. Otherwise you're rallying against something innocuous by pointing towards extreme examples. Also what about philosophies? What about things like veganism? A vegan diet might not be the best for the child. Should all parents consult dietitian experts before feeding their kids?

I just don't like this restriction upon a parent's right to raise their child free from interference. We're back into 1984 territory. If a person is abusing their child (and you can prove it is an abusive practice) then by all means, call the cops and intervene. But are you telling me that some random Sikh telling their kid to not belittle other beliefs is abusive?
Such a teaching can be linked back to their own religious understanding, it could be argued.


Oh well in that case, I agree. School is not the place to teach an exclusive religion. If religion has to be in a school setting, it should be a comparative religious class.

Although I might view religious education in itself as abuse, I would only propose to limit it in schooling. It's a long time since I had any but as far as I recall, it was just Christianity that was taught and I think they might do comparative religious studies now in many schools - no problem with that.

 

[SomeRandom]

Although I might view religious education in itself as abuse, I would only propose to limit it in schooling. It's a long time since I had any but as far as I recall, it was just Christianity that was taught and I think they might do comparative religious studies now in many schools - no problem with that.

I disliked RE when I was in school. I went to a Christian Kids club outside of my public schooling and yeah, we watched some kids' Bible stories things. And at one point Dreamworks' Prince of Egypt. But it wasn't preachy and a lot more interesting than anything my stupid RE teachers had in store at school. Also they were literally a Christian youth group. A little hard to complain about any Christian teachings being included there. But in a public school? Yeah, it should be neutral or at the very least showcase all religions equally.
I did actually have a comparative religious class, which was sort of a response (kind of) to 9/11. Kind of trying to diffuse tension among the kids. Don't know if they still do that, but far more interesting than RE. But yeah, in schools? Religion should be an all or nothing thing. Fair is fair.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

........ get lost!

Although I might view religious education in itself as abuse, I would only propose to limit it in schooling. It's a long time since I had any but as far as I recall, it was just Christianity that was taught and I think they might do comparative religious studies now in many schools - no problem with that.

So comparative religious studies is not child abuse? Good.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Do you even know what atheism is? Atheism is not having a belief in God or gods. You can't actively teach something that doesn't exist.

It seems to me what you are saying is unless you actively teach young children theism then are purposely teaching them atheism. In public schools, I don't think a teacher should say anything at all about religion. But not saying anything at all about religion is NOT a religion. It seems to me the idea that the only way you can NOT teach atheism is by teaching theism is an ill-conceived logically flawed idea.

Then Atheists should keep what they don't believe in out of the schools, and to themselves.That could and can be considered indoctrinating kids

 

[Mock Turtle]

So comparative religious studies is not child abuse? Good.

Well, I think many of us can see the difference. I have no problems with such. I hope the children can gain something too.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I disliked RE when I was in school. I went to a Christian Kids club outside of my public schooling and yeah, we watched some kids' Bible stories things. And at one point Dreamworks' Prince of Egypt. But it wasn't preachy and a lot more interesting than anything my stupid RE teachers had in store at school. Also they were literally a Christian youth group. A little hard to complain about any Christian teachings being included there. But in a public school? Yeah, it should be neutral or at the very least showcase all religions equally.
I did actually have a comparative religious class, which was sort of a response (kind of) to 9/11. Kind of trying to diffuse tension among the kids. Don't know if they still do that, but far more interesting than RE. But yeah, in schools? Religion should be an all or nothing thing. Fair is fair.

Our RE teacher seemed to have a thing for the girls - not that this influenced me in any way - he probably did better than me. Actually, I got on quite well with some of the girls since they seemed to regard me as being more mature - not that it got me anywhere I wanted to be.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, I think many of us can see the difference. I have no problems with such. I hope the children can gain something too.

So what you suggest may be child abuse is not religious teaching but [one-sided] religious indoctrination.