Arguments about teaching children god is real

Herbal Deity · 20-09-2010 11:20PM

Of course I did.

But I didn't believe they were real.

metrovelvet · 20-09-2010 11:26PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:27PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:33PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:33PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:35PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:35PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:38PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:41PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:53PM

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 · 20-09-2010 11:59PM

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 · 21-09-2010 12:05AM

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 · 21-09-2010 12:18AM

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 · 21-09-2010 12:21AM

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 · 21-09-2010 12:48AM

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 · 21-09-2010 12:57AM

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 · 21-09-2010 01:26AM

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 · 21-09-2010 01:39AM

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 · 21-09-2010 08:16AM

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 · 21-09-2010 10:52AM

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

metrovelvet · 21-09-2010 10:57AM

I would agree about the intent issue. Pedoviles don't think they are doing anything wrong either. Neither did Nazis.

Ickle Magoo · 21-09-2010 11:05AM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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.

I think abusers who don't think they are doing anything wrong would be very much in the minority - usually abusers thrive and depend on secrecy precisely because they know what they do is wrong at some level. I don't think using the term child abuse to stretch to an issue that only some people will have with the same parental decisions and teaching makes any rational sense.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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)

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

I wouldn't class it as abuse because the parent believes what they are teaching to be to be true and as much as I'm loathe to say it, however the unlikelihood, we don't know it isn't. Would you class JW bringing up their children to refuse blood and blood products as child abuse? Or any of the million of other parental choices and teachings that are personal and subjective?

I think there is an important distinction between abusive parents that shout and scream, call names, use belts, teach their children extremism in any form, use dominance, guilt, abuse of power, etc - and calling religious parents in general, child abusers.

metrovelvet · 21-09-2010 11:08AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think abusers who don't think they are doing anything wrong would be very much in the minority - usually abusers thrive and depend on secrecy precisely because they know what they do is wrong at some level. I don't think using the term child abuse to stretch to an issue that only some people will have with the same parental decisions and teaching makes any rational sense.

I wouldn't class it as abuse because the parent believes what they are teaching to be to be true and as much as I'm loathe to say it, however the unlikelihood, we don't know it isn't. Would you class JW bringing up their children to refuse blood and blood products as child abuse? Or any of the million of other parental choices and teachings that are personal and subjective?

I think there is an important distinction between abusive parents that shout and scream, call names, use belts, teach their children extremism in any form, use dominance, guilt, abuse of power, etc - and calling religious parents in general, child abusers.

Yes I would. I would consider the Jehovas Witness refusal of blood transfusions child abuse. I also consider Islamic and Jewish customs of circumcision child abuse. I also consider FGM child abuse.

And I do think they should be stopped.

Ickle Magoo · 21-09-2010 11:28AM

I would certainly consider loping off part of either sex without medical necessity child abuse; I'm not sure I'd call passing on beliefs that as an adult that person chooses to uphold as child abuse...

metrovelvet · 21-09-2010 11:46AM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would certainly consider loping off part of either sex without medical necessity child abuse; I'm not sure I'd call passing on beliefs that as an adult that person chooses to uphold as child abuse...

I think in rather exceptional ideological interference it can be. Like when you tell a child, every time you do something naughty you are driving the nails in deeper [Christ reference] and doing naughty can range from back talk to masterbating, yes its sick.

Ickle Magoo · 21-09-2010 12:10PM

That was my point earlier. If you take it to the extremes of the kind of parents that would tell their children they are causing a dead person pain or who have a big hang-ups with sex that they determinedly pass onto their offspring then I think the parents are guilty of wilfully behaving in a manner conducive to damaging their children but I think we have to acknowledge, parents with that kind of mentality; who use brute force, coercion and blackmail would be likely to do so with or without justifying it by religious means.

There are certainly times when people who are religious extremists are guilty of abusing children but I think it's the people and the extremism guilty of the abuses. In the murkier areas of what constitutes inflicting potential psychological "harm" I, personally, am loath to use the term child abuse.

faceman · 21-09-2010 12:33PM

Cróga wrote: »

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.

Presumably Santa Claus doesnt visit the children in your house?

Last time I checked he wasnt real either. Is that child abuse too? it seems to be ok to lie to children about him though.

Truley · 21-09-2010 01:19PM

By alot of people's definition, surely the santa thing is child abuse because it is a deliberate lie, at least religious people actually believe what they are saying is true.

It also has alot of the hallmarks of religious teaching, on one hand kids like it because it's a comforting idea and it can encourage them to behave well. However it is (mis)used in many of the same ways, as a method of blackmailing or scaring kids, or as an easy way of manipulating their behaviour. It's part of a larger institution which parents are expected to play along with and are heavily criticised, even abused if they don't. And of course at the top, parents and children are at the mercy of larger corporations who push a particular idea of how christmas should be, making money from the pressue other people are put under.

I know what I'm saying sounds very extreme but I remember reading a thread somewhere else on this very website where a poster suggested the idea of not doing the 'santa thing.' The poster was lambasted for daring to suggest the idea with most posters using the argument that their kids 'need magic,' or even worse, that they would 'ruin it for everyone else.' It really made me think that there really isn't much of a difference between the santa thing and organised religion.

Ickle Magoo · 21-09-2010 02:31PM

I think the difference between lying that a big fat man is the one that brings your presents and that you'll burn for eternity for daring to stroke your own genitals is fairly obvious, no?

Herbal Deity · 21-09-2010 04:53PM

Truley wrote: »

I know what I'm saying sounds very extreme but I remember reading a thread somewhere else on this very website where a poster suggested the idea of not doing the 'santa thing.' The poster was lambasted for daring to suggest the idea with most posters using the argument that their kids 'need magic,' or even worse, that they would 'ruin it for everyone else.' It really made me think that there really isn't much of a difference between the santa thing and organised religion.

In some ways, there's not really. If I had kids and could get away without doing the Santa thing, I wouldn't do it personally. I'm firmly convinced that it would not dilute Christmas for them in the slightest.

metrovelvet and I had an exchange relating to this earlier in the thread.

Arguments about teaching children god is real

Comments