Religion is "child abuse" ??

Cú Giobach

This is a subject I would love to debate with R. Dawkins.
He claims that parents indoctrinating their children with their religion is "child abuse", citing that it makes it more difficult for them to form a proper and realistic perspective of reality.
Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.
Parents want the best for their kids and taking the chance of "damming them to hell" in the event of premature death would be inexcusable.

liah

It's a little melodramatic to be calling it "child abuse." Plenty of children were raised in religious households and turned out alright. I really don't like that term being thrown around lightly.

That said, I don't agree with childhood indoctrination, either. But I certainly wouldn't class it under "child abuse."

Roro4Brit

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.

You sound exactly like Fred & Shirley Phelps

Didn't you post this in humanities already

sorry that was croga, nevermind carry on

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

While I think using the term child abuse is slightly hysterical, in order to be classed as child abuse surely it would be harmful to all children but many kids grow up grateful for a religious upbringing... In saying that, I think the defence that parents HAVE to instil their religion in their kids for fear of deistic reprisal sounds like a complete cop-out too.

I mean, what would you think of parents who instil fervent racism in their children because they genuinely feel black people are second class citizens? Would you think it completely understandable and reasonable? Or perhaps those parents who teach their kids that punching other kids gets them what they want in life because they truly believe that's how the world works? Having the power to instil the fundamental building blocks to a child's' learning should never be abused and manipulating that child using coercion and threats of eternal damnation or suggesting dead relatives can see them at all times is just abysmal parenting.

Incidentally, I actually think the whole go to hell thing was invented specifically to ensure childhood indoctrination and keep certain religious organisations in business....and my post is only in reference to the whole hell & damnation, guilt laden kind of religious indoctrination.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I mean, what would you think of parents who instil fervent racism in their children because they genuinely feel black people are second class citizens?

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Children should be taught about religions in general but not indoctrinated into any specific religion. It is a very subjective issue and depends on how fervently the parents teach it. If it leads to a life of stringently clinging onto archaic beliefs and forgoing thinking for themselves, then I would consider that child abuse.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

Personal belief has nothing to do with truth. How do they know that their religion is the right one? They BELIEVE that it is but there is no logical reason to do so.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

I don't see a difference...only an idiot would claim they know absolutely that their "meaning of existence" is worth any more than their own "world view"...

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

Children should be taught about religions in general but not indoctrinated into any specific religion. It is a very subjective issue and depends on how fervently the parents teach it. If it leads to a life of stringently clinging onto archaic beliefs and forgoing thinking for themselves, then I would consider that child abuse.

That is your position, but what would you think if you were, say a christian?

Personal belief has nothing to do with truth. How do they know that their religion is the right one? They BELIEVE that it is but there is no logical reason to do so.

Personal belief has everything to do with the OP.
To someone who "believes", their religion is the "right" one.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Personal belief has everything to do with the OP.
To someone who "believes", their religion is the "right" one.

And to a racist, they are right and to a sexist, they are right; the question is are they right to pass on such views to their children? If you think it's wrong for other people to pass on their personal views of their race's superiority or their sexes superiority - why is okay to pass on a religious superiority?

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And to a racist, they are right and to a sexist, they are right; the question is are they right to pass on such views to their children? If you think it's wrong for other people to pass on their personal views of their race's superiority or their sexes superiority - why is okay to pass on a religious superiority?

Not passing on the religious aspects would result (in their opinion) in damnation for eternity.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Just because a parent is harbouring under the illusion that they must do it because god tells them to doesn't mean it's right or good parenting for that matter - any more than the parent who teaches their kids to be racist or sexist or a bully think they are enhancing their child's life & instilling quality learning.

If I truly believed that an alien called szurp would come down and kill my family if I didn't beat my kids every day - does that mean it's not child abuse and it's actually justified?

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is a subject I would love to debate with R. Dawkins.
He claims that parents indoctrinating their children with their religion is "child abuse", citing that it makes it more difficult for them to form a proper and realistic perspective of reality.
Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.
Parents want the best for their kids and taking the chance of "damming them to hell" in the event of premature death would be inexcusable.

I can't speak for Mr Dakwins, of course, but my problem lies not with parents teaching their children what they themselves believe.
My problem lies with parents who will go to some extremes to make sure the child does not hear about what anybody else believes in presented in a positive way. That's when I think indoctrination begins, and depending on the lengths the parents go to, I do agree that it can reach near-abusive levels.

Yes, of course the parents have a right to teach their children what they think is right or wrong.
But the child has a right to learn about the world, and to have access to knowledge and education. A parent that wants to prevent the child from learning acts grossly irresponsible in my view.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

Well, to keep with the racist comparison, for a lot of racists racial purity is a form of religion, it needs to be preserved at all costs.
So to them, not teaching their children about it could result in them ending up mixing with other races, and possibly having mixed-race children...
How could they possibly take that chance with their children and grandchildren?

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Just because a parent is harbouring under the illusion that they must do it because god tells them to doesn't mean it's right or good parenting for that matter - any more than the parent who teaches their kids to be racist or sexist or a bully think they are enhancing their child's life & instilling quality learning.

If I truly believed that an alien called szurp would come down and kill my family if I didn't beat my kids every day - does that mean it's not child abuse and justified?

You seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether child indoctrination is good or bad in a general sense, but from the perspective of a religious parent.
Basically, how could a religious parent not bring up a child in their own faith.
Believing the consequences could be so awful ???

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Personal belief has everything to do with the OP.
To someone who "believes", their religion is the "right" one.

For the majority of them, this is due to childhood indoctrination. It's a vicious cycle of believing that a deity who supposedly loves you and cares for you would sentence you to eternal damnation if your parents don't indoctrinate you and you grow up to choose a different religion or abandon religious beliefs altogether.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether child indoctrination is good or bad in a general sense, but from the perspective of a religious parent.
Basically, how could a religious parent not bring up a child in their own faith.
Believing the consequences could be so awful ???

No, I think it's you missing the point. Adults can believe in whatever they like. Indoctrination of children is the issue, not about whether it appeals to the sensibilities of the parent.

Acts of evil done with good intentions are still acts of evil.

Zillah

Thread Fail.

Dawkins specifically said that labelling children with a religion is tantamount to child abuse. Calling a three year old a "muslim" is ridiculous because that child could not possibly understand what it means to be a muslim.

He never said that raising a child in a particular religion is child abuse. He certainly doesn't approve of it but he doesn't call it child abuse.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether child indoctrination is good or bad in a general sense, but from the perspective of a religious parent.
Basically, how could a religious parent not bring up a child in their own faith.
Believing the consequences could be so awful ???

I don't think I am, I'm not sure you are getting the points being made and nor am I not sure how your post above negates any of the points made thus far. Again, point to one of a million things we consider bad parenting and wrong to pass onto children which certain parents wilfully pass on out of fear of the consequences - how is certain extreme parental religious indoctrination any different...I don't think a fear of a deity is any different to a fear of women or a fear of coloured people or whatever is driving other extremist behaviours. So religious parents are convinced they are doing good - so what? Since when did personal conviction = terrific parenting.

Again, I have a fear of szurp, does that make beating my kids good parenting or my behaviour non-abusive? No, it doesn't. It doesn't matter what the motivation there is a line that can be crossed from loving, caring parenting into abusive extremism.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Zillah wrote: »

Thread Fail.

Dawkins specifically said that labelling children with a religion is tantamount to child abuse. Calling a three year old a "muslim" is ridiculous because that child could not possibly understand what it means to be a muslim.

He never said that raising a child in a particular religion is child abuse. He certainly doesn't approve of it but he doesn't call it child abuse.

Dawkins has also talked about the mental abuse of teaching threats of damnation and has spoken and written about how much religious teaching can be abusive for children.
You are only talking about one specific comment.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

To put the question another way.
If you truly believed that by not giving your child your religion, you would be damming it to hell, Could you do it??

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Would you not be better puting that to a religious forum? I don't think many atheists or agnostics have that issue...

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Would you not be better puting that to a religious forum? I don't think many atheists or agnostics have that issue...

See, it is a tricky question.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Well no, it doesn't even rank as a question, never mind a tricky one for someone who has no belief in a god, far less the christian view of heaven and hell. It's no more a tricky question for an atheist than it is for a hindu.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well no, it doesn't even rank as a question, never mind a tricky one for someone who has no belief in a god, far less the christian view of heaven and hell. It's no more a tricky question for an atheist than it is for a hindu.

If you don't like the question, why are you responding?
Some people actually like musing over things like this.
No point in going to a religious forum with it, because they are mostly nuts.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

It's not that I don't like it - if there is no hell and no god, what's the relevance of the question?

MagicMarker

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To put the question another way.
If you truly believed that by not giving your child your religion, you would be damming it to hell, Could you do it??

If I truly believed that, then the cruel part would be having children in the first place.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not that I don't like it - if there is no hell and no god, what's the relevance of the question?

To discuss the point with anyone who is interested.
If no one is, then so be it.
The perspective of people with an a-theistic outlook is best for this kind of question.

Zillah

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Dawkins has also talked about the mental abuse of teaching threats of damnation and has spoken and written about how much religious teaching can be abusive for children.
You are only talking about one specific comment.

Ok well to address your question; tormenting children with threats of eternal torture is abusive. If the parents are stupid or crazy enough to believe in these things then they don't think they're being abusive but they are. In the same way that parents who do nothing but pray over their dying diabetic daughter don't think they're being criminally neglectful, but they are.

krudler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If I truly believed that an alien called szurp would come down and kill my family if I didn't beat my kids every day - does that mean it's not child abuse and it's actually justified?

you szurp apologists are all the same, everyone knows its blaxaar who will be the saviour of the universe.