A Modest Request (Religion as child abuse?)

Post Reply New Topic

Now and again on this forum, the idea has been expressed that to raise a child in any given religion, when the child is too young to decide the truth of the religion for himself, constitutes child abuse. Rather, children should be raised so as to make their own decision about the truth of the religion - or rather about the falsity, since this idea is generally advanced by atheists/agnostics. (Nicholas Humphrey: "Children...have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas—no matter who these other people are.")

One may raise a child to be American. This is not abusive. One may not raise a child to be an American Christian. This is abusive.

My question to all who have put forward this idea: how would it work in practice? How do we Christians, and other theists, avoid poisoning our children with our beliefs and values, and yet raise them in accord with those beliefs and values? Or, as Nicholas Humphrey says in his lecture, should that right and responsibility be taken from us?

now i dont excactly know who any these people you mention are.
should it really be a right to decide anything for anyone despite their age?

in practicality it is a lot harder than the idea.
in my eyes free will in itself would have to be examined before we can ever look at what choices we should and shouldnt have.

Really why is this hard

Actually the 'complicated' part is whenever 'conflict' arises and then any religion steps in with the 'God' card. If kids were raised to be kind, tolerant and inclusive there wouldn't be a need for a 'God' card. Religion based discipline with children is not needed. If parents that are highly religious could approach it with a more logical mind and not gear the delivery of religion to the cognitive development I don't think anyone would bring up the 'brainwashing'. Tiny kids who can't understand abstract things like God, but repeat things like 'God loves me', or 'God wouldn't want me to do that' have been brainwashed. They should be learning these things by hearing simpler things like, 'I am loveable' and 'I wouldn't want to do anything that would make any one cry.' I have no idea why this is difficult. Why is it hard to teach a kid values and character because values and character build the human spirit. Those with a properly built human spirit are happy human beings. Religion is not just about values but very intense---scary stories---intended to shock and strike fear in adults who struggle with values and character. They don't mean anything to kids except to terrify them to compliance.

This is a big problem in our world, but not any more of the problem than what is happening in education. The raising of a child is not up to schools, churches, but up to the parents. Why any kid would need to go to Bible class is beyond me. What would Jesus do with that giant piece of cake?????? Well that kid should already know that even if he is handed the big piece of cake there are 10 other people in the room that would also like cake (we all think and care about all human beings). It shouldn't be taught that 'Jesus' would share but that HE should share because it is the right thing to do. If you do your job as a parent you don't need the Bible to back you up. When they get old enough and want to know about this Bible or Jesus or God or Allah, then sit them down and explain it, explain it all and all the different religions too. Explain why they all think 'this is the only way' and why. But values and character and citizenship (in whatever country) and a global sensitive mind are all your job.

Oodain:

"now i dont excactly know who any these people you mention are.
should it really be a right to decide anything for anyone despite their age? "

But by saying that you question my right to decide what to teach.

And by living in society - living even a fraction of your time interacting with so much as one Alzheimer's afflicted paraplegic - you have given your assent to deciding for others and their deciding for you.

Even depositing your new born child in the woods as some cultures did their terminally ill is itself as much deciding for that child as having it born in the first place.

And unless each child gets a separaste planet devoid of akll other intelligent life it will not work anyway.

It is not a matter of does one have the right.Of necessity each person in society WILL decide for others. The question is, what is it right to decide?

Back to Natty Boh:

If Huxley and Orwell and a few others merged, Lo Stat could perhaps eliminate all dissidents, including theists, deniers of the divinity of Big Brother, Fletcherizers, smokers, Tagmemicists, Whigs, pacifists, street gangs, the genetically unfit, the genetically too fit, old Uncle Tom Cobley and all. If any of the proscribed classes were not eliminated, Lo Stat could and doubtless would ensure they never had a chance to infect the young with their evil memes. Big Brother and Lo Stat would probably buy into memes by that or another name, it is the kind of ridiculously perverse idea that appeals to such.

BUT it would be in vain. The asphalt cracks and a sapling springs up in the very center of the parking lot. Knut cannot fix the tide.

Unless this race is totally replaced, dissident minds will appear. There will be those who question, those who rebel, whatever the training and whatever its content.

This is why we have this endless while the world stands cycle by which the slender roots of new ideas crack and crumble the concrete orthodoxy, only to be bronzed by others into a new orthodoxy, due to tarnish and pit and fail in its turn.

Dum volvitur orbis.

Free Will Free Action - I'm not going thyere now, been through that to recently.

But as for examining consequences:

I will not say I fully grasp your point, but I have to say that no matter how many moves ahead the Grand Master can see, he can still be surprise when he loses. And I am thinking of one particular chess game when I, an unscientific player out of practice, beat my competitive scientific chess playing uncle.

We have Free Will precisely because we can NOT ultimately predict the outcome.

Also, part of the problem is that people keep trying to base social design on a philosophy.

Much of Christian ceremony involves young people- first communion, and whatever else (I can't say as I haven't experienced any of it...). The problem is teaching what I term as 'non-Christian values' that masquerade as Christian, such as gay-hating, anti-evolution, bias towards other religions...
Perhaps the right way to do it is to begin Church instruction only at the age of 10 to 16. Before that an education into religion with an outsiders perspective could be given, to teach the history and human geography facets. At a later age a person can choose to follow religion, if to them, a Creator is the answer to life.

Right, it just isn't plausible to raise children without the religious values of their parents. Really, what it is, is just that some beliefs are inherently problematic, not that religion is a special belief.

I don't think that it is correct to subscribe to a generalization.

Many, many children are raised in religious homes or in religious schools and emerge just as happy, healthy and well developed as children raised in secular homes and schools.

And many children raised in secular homes and schools are abused in ways that do not involve religious belief.

The question should not be, "Is this practice abusive?" The question should be, millions of times over, "Is this child's environment abusive?" What is abusive to one particular child may be fine for another. When we attempt to set hard and fast rules we ensure that there will be children who fall through the cracks.

Visagrunt say straight. Endorsed.