Arguments about teaching children god is real

Cróga

EDIT: I got banned for bringing up this topic in Parenting. My posts were moved to here.

Ever try to have a conversation with someone religious? They can never be reasoned out of it, because they were never reasoned into it. Religion = child abuse.

Telling a child that there's a man in the sky keeping an eye on them, watching their every move, listening to every thought and telling them that they will spend eternity burning in fire if they dont believe in this man or doing something "wrong" is abusive. Because childrens brains arent developed its no different than someone going into a mentally handicapped home and telling them there's a man in the sky watching everything they do and is going to send them to burn them forever after they die. Someone would be arrested for doing this.

alex73 wrote: »

Because its what I believe, what my parents, grandparents and great grand parents believed. I'm proud that my Children believe.

If you want to call it superstition... that's your decision. I am happy to educate my children in the faith I was educated in.

This is a good thing? You're an atheist to 9999+ other Gods why not go one more? If you grew up in a place where a talking fish was God. You'd look to it as being virtuous. The popularity of something has no effect on the truth value of a proposition. A billion people believing that 2 + 2 = 5 doesnt make it any truer. Im sorry but it's not my decision. The belief in God is not based on any reason or evidence making it superstition. You can believe anything you want, im not saying you cant, but your belief is still subject to reason and evidence.

Cróga

Joey the lips wrote: »

I bring my kids to mass every week. Like my parents did with me. I am not here to debate the morals of religion.

I bring my kids to mass becuase i choose to raise my kids a certain way. When they are old enough they can decide if they wish to continue down this road.

I do not understand why people are so critical of those who bring their kids to mass. I use the sugar and sweets analagy..

Kids love sugar kids love sweets. Kids would eat sugar all day long. Kids would attempt to survive on nothing but sweets.

If we gave kids the option they would choose to eat sweets all the time and nothing else however as parents we choose to protect them and limit their intake of sugar. We teach them the wrongs by doing this.

When they are off an age they are free to eat all the sweets they want...However through there education they know this not to be the wise choice.

I have never seen a situation where a parent attempting to religion there chid has done any harm. However i have seen where free will has.

I agree that you should limit a kids sugar intake because it has bad effects on their health. But i dont see how you can compare free will (kids eating sugar) and force (parents bringing kids to mass) as if they're the same. What reason is there to bring kids to mass?

I bring my kids to mass becuase i choose to raise my kids a certain way.

Please watch the bomb in the brain the effects of child abuse video series

Cróga

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I really don't think parenting is the appropriate forum to cast aspersions or knock anyone else's parenting choices - whether that be having a faith or lack there of.

Why do you think that?

Cróga

bad2dabone wrote: »

well, I hope I articulate myself properly here, I feel that this forum (parenting) isn't the place for anyone to try and enforce their religious views on others and from the manner of your posts its coming across that you are championing atheism and judging those who choose to bring their kids to mass. (even though I concur with some of your assertions!)

Put it this way, I hate when religious people try to force religion on me or mine. I assume you feel the same way.( correct me if i'm wrong) It just seems to me that in this thread you're trying to force your views on the religious.

In my experience that never works and just makes you look like the fundamentalist. And that's never a good thing imo

Thanks for explaining.

I dont mean to force my views on anyone, and if i am i apologize. Im just trying to raise the topic that teaching children God is real is abusive. I might be wrong in that assertion but that's why i want to discuss it.

Cróga

bad2dabone wrote: »

it's the right of parents to bring up their children in the belief system which they see fit though (within reason of course!). Although you consider it child abuse (which is a very very strong term and bound to provoke a strong reaction) parents who themselves were brought up in a religious environment and found it beneficial will want to pass those experiences on to their children.

Telling religious people that they're abusing their children by taking them to mass is only going to provoke anger i think. If you worded it a different way you might have more success in provoking rational thought and reasoned debate.

I have no problem with parents who teach their children about God, or any other belief system, the problem i see is teaching them that its real. Children have undeveloped brains and a belief that there is a man in the sky, watching their every move, listening to their every thought, and that if they dont be "good" they will be punished and sent to place full of burning for the rest of their lives, is abuse, especially when the God doesnt exist. My organs (liver, kidney etc) exist but God doesnt.

Also, kids are very smart they go through their lives using the scientific method why do they need to be taught that God is real? Only way they can believe this is through guilt and obligation. This is emotional abuse.

Why should i word it a different way? Im saying it how i see it. It's impossible to provoke rational thought to those who believe in God especially if their belief came from their own abusive parents. They wernt reasoned into it, and wont be reasoned out of it. It's like a soldier who comes back from Iraq, walking down the street he hears the noise of a car's exhaustion going off. His reaction is its a gun shot and jumps to the ground for cover. You cant sit down with him and reason him out of it because he wasnt reasoned into it. The war had disastrous effects on his brain. This is actually nothing compared to what a child who's brain is still developing goes through.

If it causes anger thats actually a good thing, its touching a part they dont want to go. The anger is a protector of the trauma. The anger at me is only a proxy of where the anger is really directed at - the people who abused them - "but my parents loved me, they would never abuse me" kinda thing. If you're comfortable in your belief you dont get angry.

bad2dabone

Cróga wrote: »

I have no problem with parents who teach their children about God the problem i see is teaching them that its real.

but of course religious people are going to teach their kids that god is real

Cróga wrote: »

Children have undeveloped brains and a belief that there is a man in the sky, watching their every move, listening to their every thought, and that if they dont be "good" they will be punished and sent to place full of burning for the rest of their lives, is abuse, especially when the God doesnt exist. My organs (liver, kidney etc) exist but God doesnt.

I agree with you here, a childs brain is set up to believe what
an adult tells them is fact. Of course not every parent teaches the fire and brimstone brand of religion but creating the myth of a god in a childs mind is wrong in my opinion too.

Cróga wrote: »

Also, kids are very smart they go through their lives using the scientific method why do they need to be taught that God is real? ....

I certainly don't think that kids should be taught that god is real, but as discussed before its the parents right to teach them that he is.

Cróga wrote: »

This creates guilt and obligation. This is emotional abuse.

Why should i word it a different way? Im saying it how i see it.

Fair enough, but nobody will take kindly to the assertion that they are emotionally abusing their kids. I think people would respond to your posts if you perhaps didn't tell them they were abusing their children you know what i mean?

Cróga wrote: »

It's impossible to provoke rational thought to those who believe in God especially if their belief came from their own abusive parents.

Difficult, agreed, not impossible. If its impossible to change their minds then why engage in debate with the religious folks? I think you know its extremely frustrating but not impossible! Again, terming someones parent as "abusive" is hardly going to bring them around them to your point of view.

Cróga wrote: »

If it causes anger thats actually a good thing, its touching a part they dont want to go. The anger is a protector of the trauma. Plus, the anger at me is only a proxy of where the anger is really directed at - the people who abused them - "but my parents loved me, they would never abuse me" kinda thing. If you're comfortable in your belief you dont get angry.

the last paragraph of your post is one i'm still digesting tbh - it is late after all!

Cróga

bad2dabone wrote: »

the last paragraph of your post is one i'm still digesting tbh - it is late after all!

This video might give you some idea of what im trying to say

shinfujiwara

alex73 wrote: »

Because its what I believe, what my parents, grandparents and great grand parents believed. I'm proud that my Children believe.

If you want to call it superstition... that's your decision. I am happy to educate my children in the faith I was educated in.

Your proud that your children believe in it? They are just children, they will believe anything you say, why would you be "proud" of it? When they are in their 30's you'll know them as a fully-formed person, not now. Then you would have reasons to feel pride, don't you agree?

I dont mean to force my views on anyone, and if i am i apologize. Im just trying to raise the topic that teaching children God is real is abusive. I might be wrong in that assertion but that's why i want to discuss it.

I must agree with Cróga, because till today I've never met a faithful that truly respect their children. If the child says "I don't think that's true" - "I don't believe that jesus will do this to me" - "I don't want to do this." They just try to change the kid, they won't just say "OK son, I respect your beliefs."

About 99% of the times they will just force the kid to change and believe in what they believe. If you are religious and don't do that, then you're part of a minority. So, for me, it is indeed child abuse. Why would anyone be proud because they have successfully done their job of scaring their children to death with stories? Don't you feel awful when you see a kid all sad, doing nothing, then you ask them why the sadness and they say "mommy screamed at me because I didn't want to go to mass, and she said I can't have fun for today as a punishment, and that god is sad because of me."

WTF?! How can a grown up person say that to a child? How on earth would you consider this fanatic act as a good thing? It's like parents of mine in Brazil, I've seen my uncle beating his little boy because he was saying the name of a "enemy football club" repeatedly. Just another form of fanatism and religion it's the same kind of thing for me. You can't question it, you're forced to believe and forced to do the same with your children, and you just need to do whatever other people say to you. If that's not fanatism, what is this?

My wife barely have contact with her family anymore because she married me, an atheist. Her family also would spank her if she didn't want to go to mass or something like that. When we fell in love she actually believed that she was going to hell because of the relationship with a non-believer. We are together for some years now and she feels much better not having to worry if what she is doing with her life is "right" or not. She cries sometimes remembering how brainwashed she was and because of the current relationship with her parents.

You want to educate your children? Give them lots of books about all sorts of matters, including religion, and access to the internet. Then let them figure out their own beliefs. Don't you think that's better than say to them that Zeus and Apollo will strike them down if they don't brush their teeth? I still remember how good I felt in my adolescence, having contact with this kind of information that I never had in my childhood. And realizing that I could do whatever I wanted to.

Joey the lips

Cróga wrote: »

I agree that you should limit a kids sugar intake because it has bad effects on their health. But i dont see how you can compare free will (kids eating sugar) and force (parents bringing kids to mass) as if they're the same. What reason is there to bring kids to mass?



Please watch the bomb in the brain the effects of child abuse video series

you have missed my point and made the thread what i though you would... I go to mass because i choose to i bring my kids because i choose to. Is there something in that your missing.

we'llallhavetea wrote: »

i have to say, joey the lips, the analogy is not clear to me

do you mean that bringing your kids to mass instills morals and without mass the wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong?

No i mean that i choose to bring my kids to mass because i know it to be right. When they come of a certain age i will be happy for them to make there own decision. In otherwords if i let them choose now they would eat sweets all day. I think this to be wrong where as they think it perfect.

Cróga

Joey the lips wrote: »

you have missed my point and made the thread what i though you would... I go to mass because i choose to i bring my kids because i choose to. Is there something in that your missing.

OK help me understand your point.

You're saying you stop your kids from eating sugar all day because of the effects. The effects are bad on the health. You could also argue that if they were eating vegetables all day you could also make the decision to stop them but you know that this is a good effect on their health so you dont. I see what you're saying here and I agree. I think we both can agree that as parents we are responsible for our kids and their wellbeing.

But, what is the effect of bringing a kid to mass and teaching them that god is real is what we're discussing.

Ickle Magoo

Cróga wrote: »

Why do you think that?

Because it's against the forum charter for starters, presumably why you got a ban. There are multiple discussion fora for having a meaty debate about all manner of things but some fora are specifically for support and therefore have a much heavier degree of moderation - parenting is one of those. If you read the charter stickied at the top of the forum you'd know that.

For what it's worth, I am no fan of organised religion but calling peoples choice to indoctrinate their children child abuse is stretching the term for the sake of making a tasty sound-byte and I think it disingenuous to those who have actually suffered child abuse.

I don't really care if people want to take their kids to church and teach them about a particular religion, while I disagree with it on a personal and state education level - and a quick read of PI or RI highlights a whole raft of issues stemming from religious teaching - the only issue I really have is when people make reference to not having faith like it's impossible to have morals or be nice or a good person unless you follow some archaic allegorical book - which is just ridiculous.

someoneok

Joey the lips wrote: »

you have missed my point and made the thread what i though you would... I go to mass because i choose to i bring my kids because i choose to. Is there something in that your missing.



No i mean that i choose to bring my kids to mass because i know it to be right.

You say you bring your kids because you chose to. Where is the negotiation in that or do your children not get any say in the matter? Or is negotiation not a value you would like to pass onto your children which is a fundemamental and invaluable lesson for a child to learn for future dealing in the world imho.

Also you say you know it to be right. I would ask how you know this to be right?

Cróga

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Because it's against the forum charter for starters, presumably why you got a ban. There are multiple discussion fora for having a meaty debate about all manner of things but some fora are specifically for support and therefore have a much heavier degree of moderation - parenting is one of those. If you read the charter stickied at the top of the forum you'd know that.

When i read the charter i saw nothing about discussing child abuse being against the rules.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For what it's worth, I am no fan of organised religion but calling peoples choice to indoctrinate their children child abuse is stretching the term for the sake of making a tasty sound-byte

Im calling it child abuse because it is child abuse.

Ickle Magoo

Cróga wrote: »

When i read the charter i saw nothing about discussing child abuse being against the rules.

If you can't read the charter and see where you obviously breached it then there is little point in continuing this conversation. Just because the particular behaviour you indulged in isn't mentioned specifically doesn't mean your posts didn't break any number of the more general rules - not to mention the generic boards mantra "don't be a dick".

Cróga wrote: »

Im calling it child abuse because it is child abuse.

Fortunately your word is neither law nor truth. You THINK it's child abuse - fine, I hope you never have to experience anything relating to an abused child. It does your arguments no favour and make your point sound little more than hysterical flaming to use such terminology. The same point can easily be made in a much more succinct and rational manner and wouldn't come across as mere reactionary theatrics.

Cróga

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Fortunately your word is neither law nor truth. You THINK it's child abuse - fine

I agree, my opinion is subject to reason and evidence. I made my case above, so lets discuss it?

Nevyn

It was pointed out at Cróga why they were banned and if they want to appeal it they can via www.boards.ie/dispute, but it's not fair to discuss a ban from a different forum in this one.

Nevyn

Cróga please explain how it is child abuse and what type of child abuse exactly and the impacts.
In your own words if you can with out swaths of Dawkins being paraphrased.

BluesBerry

Ill give you a scenario 2 kids have just made the communion and have been begging me to bring them on Sundays
They have NEVER been brought to mass but now they have joined the choir and want to go every week
These kids have made up their own mind and have requested that they wish to attend I wont be stopping them I will attend with them only purely because I don't want to have them alone in a church with priests They know my views and that I don't believe but Im not going to let that rub of on them I will respect their wishes and let them figure out themselves
Im not religious I believe schools should take it of the curriculum but this is what they are learning at school and then being contradicted at home about god is more damaging with their teacher telling them one thing and parents telling them another
Religion should be taken of the curriculum and a sunday school should be set up for parents who wish their children to be educated in religion

metrovelvet

You think Santa, the tooth fairy, fairies, and the Easter bunny is child abuse?

If reality is the only thing you can teach kids well then you can charge cbeebies and the Den [RTE2] with child abuse too.

What a boring world you want us to live in.

Joey the lips

Edit... You did not get banned for bringing the topic up...You got banned for ignoring warnings to stop being annoying...

Judging by where this thread has gone its going to repeat itself...


For the unofficial record if you personally can prove that god is not real i will listen but by the same right you have to quote records i have the same right to quote my own....

Ickle Magoo

Cróga wrote: »

I agree, my opinion is subject to reason and evidence. I made my case above, so lets discuss it?

You think YouTube is evidence? How about articulating in your own words rather than posting links to someone elses?
For the record, you are preaching to the converted, other than the objection to the use of unnecessary hyperbole and hi-jacking someone else's thread - I agree with much of what you say.

metrovelvet wrote:

You think Santa, the tooth fairy, fairies, and the Easter bunny is child abuse?

Last time I looked their is no burning in hell as a sinner when it comes to santa or the tooth fairy, etc - neither do they have such an odd obsession with sexuality nor masturbation - I haven't heard too many (any?) people say they can't have a fulfilling sex life due to bunny guilt...

metrovelvet

IM-

We get a very different version of things in the American RC. Italians and French also get a very different version of things. As do Jews, who also teach their kids about God.

When I read the thread title I thought he was talking about God or G-d, not hell and masturbation. I would agree that teaching all those punitive crappy things about masturbation and hell is child abuse.

Ickle Magoo

I don't know very much about all the different sects other than the bible they share but I'm assuming the general; "be good unto others" and "there's a god looking out for us" spiritual reference isn't what is being referred to when people throw "child abuse" around - I imagine it is all the threat laden, homophobic, misogynistic, sexually repressed, stifling of critical thinking that so often goes hand-in-hand with organised religion.

we'llallhavetea_old

Joey the lips wrote: »

No i mean that i choose to bring my kids to mass because i know it to be right. When they come of a certain age i will be happy for them to make there own decision. In otherwords if i let them choose now they would eat sweets all day. I think this to be wrong where as they think it perfect.

hi joey, just seen this now, didn't know how i got all the way over here in humanities. *scratches head*

i understand what you mean now, even though you're analogy is a bit dodgy, sweets all day long are bad for you yes, but not going to mass does not deter your health imo.

Greyfox

Cróga wrote: »

...especially when the God doesnt exist. My organs (liver, kidney etc) exist but God doesnt.

...why do they need to be taught that God is real?

The way I see it you can't prove god doesn't exist theirfor it's possible that god could exist. you can't actually say parents are wrong for teaching their children about god as their is a possibility (although I think it's a very small one) that what their teacing their kids is right.

Virgil°

Greyfox wrote: »

The way I see it you can't prove god doesn't exist theirfor it's possible that god could exist. you can't actually say parents are wrong for teaching their children about god as their is a possibility (although I think it's a very small one) that what their teacing their kids is right.

Theres a very large difference between teaching a child "about" god and teaching them he does exist and all that entails it.

shinfujiwara

They should definitely teach them about religion, it's part of history. But that's it.

They teach you about greek mythology and don't try to force you into their beliefs. Why would they do that with the "current" western god? I've never seen a teacher or mother punishing a child because he doesn't believe in Thor. So why would they do that with "their" god? Is there anyone here who ACTUALLY thinks that this is right?

Any kind of fanatism brought upon your children by you or others is child abuse. People tend to believe that the only abusive behavior is something like rape by priests, for example. That's extreme abuse, not jut "abuse". My wife and I have never suffered this extreme abuse and yet, we (mainly her) were damaged by this. The reason that I wasn't severely damaged, is because my family wasn't what I call "true believers."

If you only could see her crying because of it, maybe you would change your minds. You can say "but that's her church and her parents." Yes, but who don't follow the same behavior? I'm yet to discover a truly religious family who fully respect their children beliefs and won't force them into it.

Would you (faithful) not hit your children if they keep "blaspheming" all the time? Would you not punish them by prevent their happiness momentarily? Would you not force them to follow a strict behavior according to what the bible or your religion says? Thus preventing them to create their own life-style?

If you don't do that, then your not a really religious person. Because I've seen people like that, saying they believe in some god, never go or rarely go to church and don't truly follow it. And moreover, they don't force their children to follow the "rules" of that religion. That is not being a religious person. A catholic person, for example, "knows" he need to force their children to believe in it, and to follow the rules, otherwise their kids would end up in hell. That's a true faithful. People who claim to be catholic or evangelic and don't act like that, are NOT true believers. And by not being one, wouldn't you wind up in hell too?

If you don't have this fanatic behavior aforementioned, you're not the kind of parent that I, and maybe others, are talking about here.

Joey the lips

Greyfox wrote: »

The way I see it you can't prove god doesn't exist theirfor it's possible that god could exist. you can't actually say parents are wrong for teaching their children about god as their is a possibility (although I think it's a very small one) that what their teacing their kids is right.

No...your still missing it...it does not really matter. i am not into argueing it as i doubt it will be greated with interest

Herbal Deity

metrovelvet wrote: »

What a boring world you want us to live in.

It depresses me when people think that this world is boring, and that you have to invent impossible, magical things to make it interesting.

Watch BBC's Planet Earth series and then tell me that if we didn't tell children about Santa, the tooth fairy, fairies, or the Easter bunny, that the world would be boring.

Children find the world fascinating all on it's own. I honestly don't believe that these fake, magical beings we often tell them about really amaze them any more than other things in the world. I certainly don't recall being particularly enthralled by anything like that as a child. If I have children, I imagine I would go along with such things for cultural reasons, but I wouldn't see them as being in any way essential or particularly beneficial for my child.

shinfujiwara

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It depresses me when people think that this world is boring, and that you have to invent impossible, magical things to make it interesting.

Watch BBC's Planet Earth series and then tell me that if we didn't tell children about Santa, the tooth fairy, fairies, or the Easter bunny, that the world would be boring.

Children find the world fascinating all on it's own. I honestly don't believe that these fake, magical beings we often tell them about really amaze them any more than other things in the world. I certainly don't recall being particularly enthralled by anything like that as a child. If I have children, I imagine I would go along with such things for cultural reasons, but I wouldn't see them as being in any way essential or particularly beneficial for my child.

I find this and other documentaries amazingly entertaining today. I can imagine how "magical" it would be for me when I was a child. I was blown away with MUCH less than that.

Being stuck in a room with priests and parents doing something that I didn't understand was not my definition of "fun" or "magical" indeed.

metrovelvet

Herbal Deity wrote: »

It depresses me when people think that this world is boring, and that you have to invent impossible, magical things to make it interesting.

Watch BBC's Planet Earth series and then tell me that if we didn't tell children about Santa, the tooth fairy, fairies, or the Easter bunny, that the world would be boring.

Children find the world fascinating all on it's own. I honestly don't believe that these fake, magical beings we often tell them about really amaze them any more than other things in the world. I certainly don't recall being particularly enthralled by anything like that as a child. If I have children, I imagine I would go along with such things for cultural reasons, but I wouldn't see them as being in any way essential or particularly beneficial for my child.

The world is fascinating to them. So is the imagination.

You didnt read stories as a child?

Herbal Deity

Of course I did.

But I didn't believe they were real.

metrovelvet

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Of course I did.

But I didn't believe they were real.

Really? I did. I believed a lot of stuff that I read.

shinfujiwara

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Of course I did.

But I didn't believe they were real.

More importantly, you wouldn't get reprehended just because you didn't. Imagine your mother screaming at you because you didn't believe that Gandalf came to life again in the LOTR The Two Towers.

shinfujiwara

metrovelvet wrote: »

Really? I did. I believed a lot of stuff that I read.

And now you don't believe anymore because you have grown and asked yourself "is this true?" - "it can't be, there is no facts at all".

Of course, that line of thought makes sense. But why 50 years old men still believe in another man dividing water?

Maybe I've even tried that when I was young, I loved Dragon Ball and stuff like that. But now I see that I don't have enough "KI" to divide waters.

metrovelvet

Looking back I didnt really buy any of the religious stuff I was told about. It just didnt add up. But I did believe in Santa and that there really was a Muppet Show and that Sesame Street existed somewhere in reality.

metrovelvet

shinfujiwara wrote: »

And now you don't believe anymore because you have grown and asked yourself "is this true?" - "it can't be, there is no facts at all".

Of course, that line of thought makes sense. But why 50 years old men still believe in another man dividing water?

Maybe I've even tried that when I was young, I loved Dragon Ball and stuff like that. But now I see that I don't have enough "KI" to divide waters.

No you see, in my religion class they explained that the Red Sea was a mistranslation of the Reed Sea, which is a much smaller body of water and seasonally it dries up or absorbs the water through the reeds.

We learn about allegory in America.

American Catholics do not take a fundamentalist reading of the Bible.

shinfujiwara

metrovelvet wrote: »

Looking back I didnt really buy any of the religious stuff I was told about. It just didnt add up. But I did believe in Santa and that there really was a Muppet Show and that Sesame Street existed somewhere in reality.

But that's harmless. As I believed in the stuff that I mentioned above. The problem is people trying to force you to believe in it, and punishing you if you don't. Don't you think that's wrong?

shinfujiwara

metrovelvet wrote: »

No you see, in my religion class they explained that the Red Sea was a mistranslation of the Reed Sea, which is a much smaller body of water and seasonally it dries up or absorbs the water through the reeds.

We learn about allegory in America.

American Catholics do not take a fundamentalist reading of the Bible.

Then people that were teaching you belong to that category aforementioned. The people that are not "truly believers". They're harmless and usually wouldn't hurt a child because of their beliefs.

metrovelvet

shinfujiwara wrote: »

Then people that were teaching you belong to that category aforementioned. The people that are not "truly believers". They're harmless and usually wouldn't hurt a child because of their beliefs.

You're saying Jesuits are not true believers. What does that mean? They are an order of the Church. Of course they are.

You have to be a fundamentalist to have a faith?

Herbal Deity

metrovelvet wrote: »

Looking back I didnt really buy any of the religious stuff I was told about. It just didnt add up. But I did believe in Santa and that there really was a Muppet Show and that Sesame Street existed somewhere in reality.

Oddly enough, religion was one of the things I actually did believe until I was about 15.

I don't think I ever really bought the idea of Santa, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny etc. Of course, I would go along with it with huge excitement due to the material rewards involved. The one outstanding memory of Christmas from my childhood has nothing to do with enthrallment at the "magic" of Santa, but rather, receiving a Sega Megadrive

Although, I suppose ultimately, I didn't really begin to critically analyse much of my thoughts and beliefs until I was around 15. A lot of what I "believed" was just lip service and obedience, with little introspective thought as to what "believing" in anything actually entailed.

I do recall fierce guilt and confused feelings regarding masturbation at about 12/13 though, on the basis of a horrible, Catholic sex ed book I was given by my parents.

shinfujiwara

metrovelvet wrote: »

You're saying Jesuits are not true believers. What does that mean? They are an order of the Church. Of course they are.

You have to be a fundamentalist to have a faith?

Interpreting books like that makes you a philosopher not a priest. A true believer for me, is the one that can't judge what the book says. The one that believe and follow everything said by the book and his church. That's my definition of believer, it's the same as fanatism.

The thing is, some churches have changed in our modern world, trying to follow a path not too far from reason. It's the way they found to still have people's attention. You got lucky to be in a place like that, because many religious wouldn't accept this kind of behavior. And that's the kind of people that I have problem with, you are most definitely not one of them. Because you can't even discuss things like this with them.

Most people that I grew up with, would get spanked if they didn't believe/follow their parents beliefs (religious beliefs). But that was in Brazil, and as far as I know people there have been too influenced by the United States. Maybe Ireland is different, having this "modern approach" more often. I wouldn't know that because I didn't grow up in Ireland. My arguments were not based in a specific place.

shinfujiwara

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I do recall fierce guilt and confused feelings regarding masturbation at about 12/13 though, on the basis of a horrible, Catholic sex ed book I was given by my parents.

That is what I have problems with. The real face of religion.

Sorry to hear that, by the way.

metrovelvet

shinfujiwara wrote: »

Interpreting books like that makes you a philosopher not a priest. A true believer for me, is the one that can't judge what the book says. The one that believe and follow everything said by the book and his church. That's my definition of believer, it's the same as fanatism.

The thing is, some churches have changed in our modern world, trying to follow a path not too far from reason. It's the way they found to still have people's attention. You got lucky to be in a place like that, because many religious wouldn't accept this kind of behavior. And that's the kind of people that I have problem with, you are most definitely not one of them. Because you can't even discuss things like this with them.

Most people that I grew up with, would get spanked if they didn't believe/follow their parents beliefs (religious beliefs). But that was in Brazil, and as far as I know people there have been too influenced by the United States. Maybe Ireland is different, having this "modern approach" more often. I wouldn't know that because I didn't grow up in Ireland. My arguments were not based in a specific place.

That to me, is not faith. Your faith is nothing without doubt and circumspection.

It is why I have no respect for Islam and why I admire Judaism. The jews have enshrined debate into the Torah. They are critical thinkers. Even Job throws his hands up to God. Could you imagine a Muslim doing that?

Imo old school Irish RC is very much like contemporary ISlam. [Another thread for that].

And by the way I grew up in the United STates and was educated there too. And I have never ever come across anything like what you are talking about except among certain immigrant populations who cant leave their bad habits behind.

We never got anything about masterbation or sex or any of that stuff Irish people did unless it was brought into the home by immigrant parents, like IRish ones for example who imported their puritanism with them. Other Catholic ethic groups did not take these philosophies on sex, so I associate them more with Ireland than I do with Rome.

Herbal Deity

shinfujiwara wrote: »

That is what I have problems with. The real face of religion.

Sorry to hear that, by the way.

mmm

Thing is though, I was never directly taught that masturbation, sex before marriage, homosexual acts, contraception etc. were wrong. Indeed, I don't think my parents believe any of these things. But while teachers and my parents were only teaching me the positive, benign, common sense aspects of Christianity, I was still having the idea and identity of being a Catholic instilled in me, and I was indirectly exposed to more distasteful aspects of it, such as that book, or the odd distasteful sermon at mass, or going on school retreats with external groups with more hardline approaches.

So to give my opinion on the main question of the thread, I would disagree with raising your child to identify with an organised religion which you yourself do not fully agree with. I'm not talking minor theological disputes here. Being against masturbation, sex before marriage, homosexual acts, contraception etc. aren't extreme positions, they are ordinary Catholic beliefs. And even if you don't teach your child them directly, they will almost certainly be exposed to them indirectly.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Fortunately your word is neither law nor truth. You THINK it's child abuse - fine, I hope you never have to experience anything relating to an abused child. It does your arguments no favour and make your point sound little more than hysterical flaming to use such terminology. The same point can easily be made in a much more succinct and rational manner and wouldn't come across as mere reactionary theatrics.

Tbh I think there's some merit to calling it child abuse.

Now I don't think Irish a la carte Catholicism is child abuse but I do remember asking my dad about hell when I was quite young. He just told me not to worry about it. What if someone was brought up in a stricter faith like say free presbyterianism or islam or even real catholicism ? would my dad have had to say 'well yeah if you don't believe in jesus or do things you shouldn't that's where you go' ?

Some kids worry like f*ck I think the idea of being watched and judged all the time really could mess with them.

Santa's different cos the worst that can happen is you don't get presents.

I'm not saying all religion is the same as what is generally referred to as child abuse, but maybe the term 'child abuse' shouldn't be exclusive to physical or sexual violence

we'llallhavetea_old

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

'well yeah if you don't believe in jesus or do things you shouldn't that's where you go' ?

Some kids worry like f*ck I think the idea of being watched and judged all the time really could mess with them.

basically happened to me. my nana was deeply religious but not in a vicious way by any means. i asked her about hell as a child and i remember her saying "have you ever burnt your finger? well imagine that pain all over your body for eternity" :eek:

scarred. for. life! because of course, i thought i was going to hell, for my thoughts alone. :rolleyes:

maybe abuse is a strong word, but i certainly wouldn't put my child through it.

shinfujiwara

metrovelvet wrote: »

That to me, is not faith. Your faith is nothing without doubt and circumspection.

It is why I have no respect for Islam and why I admire Judaism. The jews have enshrined debate into the Torah. They are critical thinkers. Even Job throws his hands up to God. Could you imagine a Muslim doing that?

Imo old school Irish RC is very much like contemporary ISlam. [Another thread for that].

And by the way I grew up in the United STates and was educated there too. And I have never ever come across anything like what you are talking about except among certain immigrant populations who cant leave their bad habits behind.

We never got anything about masterbation or sex or any of that stuff Irish people did unless it was brought into the home by immigrant parents, like IRish ones for example who imported their puritanism with them. Other Catholic ethic groups did not take these philosophies on sex, so I associate them more with Ireland than I do with Rome.

That was your reality alone, there is lots of different realities. You seem to be the kind of person who wouldn't hit your kid because of your beliefs. Which means that my problem is not with parents like you.

And I say parents, because this discussion began in another place, about parenting. I have big problems with bad parenting, and forcing your children to something like that is a enormous example.

As I said, I wasn't talking about any specific place. I didn't grew up in the US, nor in your specific town and family. But by my understanding one of the biggest problems with religion is in there. You just happened to be lucky, as I did. My parents wouldn't spank me if they find out that I used to masturbate myself with 13 years old. On the other hand, another share of the world's society would. My wife would definitely get at least scolded because of this. Her father punched her in the face when we were dating, just because of her blasphemy and the relationship with me, an atheist.

She was a minor back in that time, and nothing happened to her father despite the agression. That's because the responsable in the institution that takes care about this kind of incident, was an evangelic like her father. So, the man with the power in hand left this case alone because of religion beliefs. You can argue that you would never do that, that people that you know wouldn't also, and I believe you. But there is a lot of people like this around, acting in the "name of god". That is the true face of most religion institutions for me. That's bad parenting, fanatism, and the thing that I have real problems with.

Here is a documentary about brainwashing religion in the US:

http://www.kickasstorrents.com/jesus-camp-2006-t489078.html

It's called Jesus Camp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp

Another documentary that I like, made by Richard Dawkins, is "The Root of All Evil?"

You can download it here: http://www.kickasstorrents.com/the-root-of-all-evil-t118523.html

Ickle Magoo

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Tbh I think there's some merit to calling it child abuse.

I think abuse is defined in terms of malicious intent and that's why I don't think it's any more than hyperbole in the context of religious parents imparting their own beliefs and faiths. While you and I may look at the situation and see an adult making truly abhorrent suggestions and teachings that can affect some children right through their adult life, I would argue whether parents are actually abusing said children.

Bare in mind that not all children who are taught faith have any issues; indeed some are nothing if not eternally grateful for their parents instructions. I would certainly view parental indoctrination as an abuse of power and position of trust but I don't think bandying around the term child abuse to describe people doing what they truly believe is in the best interests of their children is particularly helpful at getting a very valid point across and engaging parents in the debate.

metrovelvet

shinfujiwara wrote: »

That was your reality alone, there is lots of different realities. You seem to be the kind of person who wouldn't hit your kid because of your beliefs. Which means that my problem is not with parents like you.

And I say parents, because this discussion began in another place, about parenting. I have big problems with bad parenting, and forcing your children to something like that is a enormous example.

As I said, I wasn't talking about any specific place. I didn't grew up in the US, nor in your specific town and family. But by my understanding one of the biggest problems with religion is in there. You just happened to be lucky, as I did. My parents wouldn't spank me if they find out that I used to masturbate myself with 13 years old. On the other hand, another share of the world's society would. My wife would definitely get at least scolded because of this. Her father punched her in the face when we were dating, just because of her blasphemy and the relationship with me, an atheist.

She was a minor back in that time, and nothing happened to her father despite the agression. That's because the responsable in the institution that takes care about this kind of incident, was an evangelic like her father. So, the man with the power in hand left this case alone because of religion beliefs. You can argue that you would never do that, that people that you know wouldn't also, and I believe you. But there is a lot of people like this around, acting in the "name of god". That is the true face of most religion institutions for me. That's bad parenting, fanatism, and the thing that I have real problems with.

Here is a documentary about brainwashing religion in the US:

http://www.kickasstorrents.com/jesus-camp-2006-t489078.html

It's called Jesus Camp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp

Another documentary that I like, made by Richard Dawkins, is "The Root of All Evil?"

You can download it here: http://www.kickasstorrents.com/the-root-of-all-evil-t118523.html

That has more to do with a disciplining parenting style than it does with religion.

It was my first grade teachers belief that bad language was wrong. So she would hang you over the sink and stick a bar of soap all over your tongue and then make you rinse and spit.

People often get punished for contravening parent's beliefs. A punch in the face is abuse for whatever reason. When I was growing up, a belt or hairbrush certainly was not considered abusive enough to call authorities. And people got them for mouthing back to skipping school to stealing snacks from the fridge.

I don't think I "happened to be lucky." I think your girlfriend has an asshole for a father.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think abuse is defined in terms of malicious intent and that's why I don't think it's any more than hyperbole in the context of religious parents imparting their own beliefs and faiths. While you and I may look at the situation and see an adult making truly abhorrent suggestions and teachings that can affect some children right through their adult life, I would argue whether parents are actually abusing said children.

I don't quite agree with the malicious intent definition. Often abusers who use violence don't think they're doing anything wrong, perhaps because they were brought up in a similar way. Though to me and I would imagine yourself also it is still abuse.

So I would classify telling a child god will punish him/her for masturbating as abuse. Their bodies are telling them to do something so they'll probably do it. Then they have to live with the guilt, self loathing etc (as well as fear of biblical punishment)

Bare in mind that not all children who are taught faith have any issues; indeed some are nothing if not eternally grateful for their parents instructions. I would certainly view parental indoctrination as an abuse of power and position of trust but I don't think bandying around the term child abuse to describe people doing what they truly believe is in the best interests of their children is particularly helpful at getting a very valid point across and engaging parents in the debate.

Kind of in agreement on some points here here. I dislike the term child abuse because it generally refers to physical/sexual violence. However I'm coming around to the idea that in some circumstances it may really be a damaging form of abuse. Maybe similar to bullying.

There's no easy answer