Is teaching your child about your religion mental abuse?

[rvg]

don´t start getting on the "we are persecuted" stuff..

If you have to hide something that you believe is right, then there's clearly some kind of retribution that the society imposes on those who profess the given belief. Otherwise there would be no reason to hide it. Unless the person is really, really, *REALLY* shy.

[Don Corleone]

don´t start getting on the "we are persecuted" stuff.

people don´t have to hide anything...it´s not like you will be put in jail or anything.

but if someone comes out and tells me that they believe in the bible....literally.....I´m gonna laugh in their face.....is this persecution????.....don´t be ridiculous.

Nobody's talking about you. Kadagar's talking about having any religious belief makes you an abusive parent. But yeah, we're paranoid...

[Ser Clegane]

is that not a form of mental abuse?

Not more than any other teaching of morals/ethics IMHO.

If this already qualifies as mental abuse I guess parents would have to limit themselves to keeping their kids alive by feeding them* and otherwise let them discover everything by themseolves

* although they should not force any specific food on them - just let these little empty-minded buggers find out for themselves what food they prefer

[Ronin]

Nobody's talking about you. Kadagar's talking about having any religious belief makes you an abusive parent. But yeah, we're paranoid...

the comment I was replying to wasn´t about the original question....go read the back posts again.

but even on that aspect....Kadagar placed a question....the majority if not all people that replied disagreed (myself included).....so I still don´t see the persecution......1 person having a negative opinion of you does not make you persecuted.

[naut]

imho yes but I am an atheist which kinda can be a religion of it's own when it comes to evangelistic behaviour, a religious person is usually far more respectful of atheism then an atheist if of religion and I keep that in mind, I think teaching someone about their religion is a better thing then teaching them to destroy it wherever they happen to find it.

[Don Corleone]

the comment I was replying to wasn´t about the original question....go read the back posts again.

but even on that aspect....Kadagar placed a question....the majority if not all people that replied disagreed (myself included).....so I still don´t see the persecution......1 person having a negative opinion of you does not make you persecuted.

It's not a negative opinion, its a call to action. Maybe the term child abuse means something different in Portugal, but in the US, saying religious households are abusive implies that children in religious households should be removed and taken into custody by the state.

Rvg responded to Kadagar, not you. You responded to him, saying "nobody's persecuting you". I responded you aren't, but Kadagar's implying religious people should have their children taken away from them.

[LittleGrizzly]

Mental abuse... no, well the really crazy fanatical ones probably cross over into that terroritory but i would put everything else down to indoctrination of young impressionable minds...

I hate to invoke godwin here and i am not linking hitler to any religion (read the previous sentence over a few times if you start to get angy..)

When hitler set up his youth camps he had the majority of the german youth eating out of his hand, so if a stranger with a bit of power can brainwash children so easily, then two parents simply telling bible storys, taking thier kids to church and just speaking of thier own personal faith could permentantly convince the child of his religion with no critical/abstract or spiritual thought of his own...

Don now you are reading well too much into it... persucution complex possibly ? i now how badly you majority's are treated in america

I think kag was simply asking is indoctrinating your kid to believe as you do a form of mental abuse, i saw no calls for children of the religious to be taken away, kag is a child of someone religious himself (did he say in this topic ?)

[Don Corleone]

I see. So in the UK, Sweden and Austria, it's common practice to leave children in abusive households? I must have missed that factoid... was probably busy reading Goebbels to Jillian.

By the way, I love your pre-defense In the same spirit, I don't mean to call anybody here an idiot, but well, you know, idiots invoke Godwin's law to tarnish every viewpoint that disagrees with their limited worldview.

[Viking]

Indoctrination? Yes, but this can be said of just about everything a parent tells their children, starting with political views, then moral views, then a general worldview, etc, etc.

Indeed -critical thought is something that hardly ever is being taught to children. Well, receive information with a critical mind, but never ever think critically of what I have taught you.

No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.

Yes, we have an instinct to look to other humans for confirmation on how well you are doing. You have someone you respect, and if you are unsure about your views, and persons whom you respect are opposed to them; you'll also be more critically inclined to your own views. Kadagar raises an important point here; the average persons live with absolute truths it has encountered through life; thus reflecting where it grew up. Americans from the US, Germans from Germany. It's no big secret.

Heard of scandinavia?

To put it mild, if you believe in God here, you are seen as the village idiot.

Not really.


-----

Question to the OP: could it be more wrong to tell children about religion than to instill in them what's "right" and what's "wrong"? Methinks not, the line would be arbitrary. What would you want children to be taught?

[InsaneApache]

No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.

That's a weird world view. We are, after all, just very clever primates and primates do have instincts.

The survival instinct. The procreation instinct. The altruist instinct etc, etc. The last one is the instinct that keeps us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

As for the OP, no, not mental abuse. Indoctrination yes, abuse, no. I brought my kids up with no religious perpective. When they both got to majority, it was up to them what they did. What I did teach them was to approach life with an open a mind as possible.

[Ronin]

No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.

Humans have instincts....the thing is that instincts can be overridden or subdued by environment and upbringing.
Someone can be trained out of certain instinctual behaviors...we do it to animals all the time so I can´t see how this can be denied.

If you have to hide something that you believe is right, then there's clearly some kind of retribution that the society imposes on those who profess the given belief. Otherwise there would be no reason to hide it. Unless the person is really, really, *REALLY* shy.

almost everyone hides something from society at large...be it a weird sexual fetish or simply the fact that you enjoy a tv show that your friends might find "geeky".......are all these people persecuted???

if you extend the definition of a word to mean everything....then it doesn´t mean anything.

and even if I accept your position....if all these people are being persecuted.....then who is the biggest persecutor?? Religion...I´m looking your way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Anything a parent does will influence their children. If a parent tells their child about religion then that is not indoctrination. At least no more than a child having an atheist parent who tells them religion is silly.

With everything a parent does they are influencing their children. If they eat something, then their children are more likely to try it, is that indoctrination? Of course parents influence their children, but its unavoidable unless all children are raised by the state in giant communes where they aren't allowed to learn anything in case it influences them before they grow up and think for themselves.

Also my parents are not religious BTW.

[Strike For The South]

If teaching religion to your kids is abuse than so is anything else a parent teaches. I dont see how you can see it as abuse when there are parents indoctrinating a kid the other way as well.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If teaching religion to your kids is abuse than so is anything else a parent teaches.

Well, this argument doesn't work.

1) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom (good)
2) Wash your hands with bleach every five minutes (bad)

You would have to examine what was being taught.

[Strike For The South]

Well, this argument doesn't work.

1) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom (good)
2) Wash your hands with bleach every five minutes (bad)

You would have to examine what was being taught.

Well he didn't specify what religion or how fervently. He just made a blanket assumption. So I agree. I dont think one can call most anything a parent teaches a child "abuse" even if its religous extremism or racism. It is not the governments business to control thought within a household to begin with.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My above post should have said my parents were not religious.

I wouldn't think it is really necessary to indoctrinate children anyway, because it is predestined before time who will/will not be saved, these are the views most US Christians hold I believe. But then its a MATRIX situation - would you really have knocked the vase over if I didn't say you would have? Would it be your fault if they went to Hell because you hadn't taught them? No presumably since God is sovereign. So no need to indoctrinate children, just let them be aware.

[seireikhaan]

Abuse? Hardly.

While I can appreciate your concern for the matter, Kad(I myself have been trying some soul searching the last year or so), abuse is a rather serious term for such an issue. As Don said, abuse implies that the government should come in and take the child away from the parent because of it. Frankly, any religious person is, in some way, going to pass on their beliefs to their children no matter how open minded they tell them to be, because children have a tendency to emulate their parent's actions for awhile when young. If one goes to church, children will want to come with them(well, at least until they hit 13 or so). If one goes to the Minaret or synogogue or stuppa or even baseball game, their children will wish to come with them, until they make a decision on whether or not they find it as interesting as their parents.

[CrossLOPER]

Well, this argument doesn't work.

1) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom (good)
2) Wash your hands with bleach every five minutes (bad)

You would have to examine what was being taught.

Something like this.

[LittleGrizzly]

If a parent tells their child about religion then that is not indoctrination. At least no more than a child having an atheist parent who tells them religion is silly.

I completely agree!!!

If i was to just read off bad things religions have done day in day out to my child that would be indoctrination (the truth but a very baised selection of it) i think your indoctrinating your kid if your trying to make him religious like you or an atheist like you

I would share my theorys and my understanding of different religions with my child but i wouldn't push him towards any religion or non religion...

If one goes to church, children will want to come with them

From about the age of 8 i wanted to stop going to church, it wasn't till i hit about 15 that i was finally let off!!
I had to go on christmas day and everything!!! (damn evil christians!! )

TBH my mums fairly laid back on the whole religion thing, i would imagine there are loads of kids who went through what i went though.... and plenty worse...

Abuse is the wrong word... indoctrination is the more appropriate word... though indoctrination doesn't imply malicious intent, its similar to convincing your kid hes a con/lib like you

[Kadagar_AV]

Too much censorship on these boards.

[Ronin]

Some said religion was not abusive...

* Cutting off parts of the penis.
* Starving for days/weeks.
* Prohibiting certain food.
* Letting the child die rather than having a blod transfusion.

That is just some examples from the most common religions... I could go on with the list of course, and if you start to include more zealot religions, it gets really bad.

you asked if simply exposing a child to religionm constituted mental abuse.

I disagreed with that premise.

those examples you are giving now are not simple exposition to religion....they are abuse...and not just mental abuse...just abuse flat out.

[The Celtic Viking]

At a young age, a child is programmed to believe whatever it's parents (or anyone it recognizes as authority) say, because testing things out scientifically at that age can be fatal. So if the parents tell their child about god, the child will not be making a choice whether to believe or not - it will just automatically believe because the parents said so. As the child grows up, it's highly unlikely that it will think more about it, and thus won't question it then either. The meme will have taken it's roots, and it would be very hard for the person to shake it off. Ask anyone who has deconverted from a faith they were taught to believe in as a child. Guess why religion always say "give us the boy and we'll give you the man"?

It is indoctrination. It is child abuse. If you really can't keep your religion for yourself, let your child first learn critical thinking, then tell it about religion (and not just your own).

imho yes but I am an atheist which kinda can be a religion of it's own when it comes to evangelistic behaviour

Atheism is not a religion any more than "off" is a TV channel. It simply isn't. Religion is the practice of worshipping a god/gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods, and therefore it is not a religion.

As for the "evangelical" part, yes, atheists can be outspoken, and we bloody well should be. If theists could keep their religion from affecting someone else than themselves, then yes, I'd say leave it be, but people don't. People vote on their beliefs, they try to pass laws and regulations, they blow themselves and other people up because of their beliefs. We simply cannot stay silent and just watch.

a religious person is usually far more respectful of atheism then an atheist if of religion

LOL! Go to the middle east and say you're an atheist - see how long you get to keep your head. Admittedly, the Christians in America are a little better - they just disown you if they're your parents, leave you if they're your friends, fire you if they're your employer or persecute you if they just know you're an atheist.

No, not everyone does that. A majority, though... yes.

and I keep that in mind, I think teaching someone about their religion is a better thing then teaching them to destroy it wherever they happen to find it.

Showing them that there's no basis for their irrational belief is not a bad thing. Sure, people can do it in bad ways, but religious beliefs doesn't deserve respect. That is not to say the believer doesn't deserve respect, but the belief doesn't. No belief does. It either stands on it's own merits, or it falls for it's lack of them.

The lack of self-preservation might be an instinct, we are social creatures. There has never been a society without religion, religion is probably the most basic codification of law, since religions have the same themes everywhere the same rules are in place everywhere. How do you explain that.

Care to back that up with some evidence? You can't just say "there has never been a society without religion" and expect us to take your word for it.

Why religion has been so widespread is because humans are naturally curious. We want answers, and when we didn't have the science to find them out, we made them up. That eased our minds, because it felt better to pretend to have the answers rather than to admit that you don't know.

In towns perhaps but towns are not the villages, scandinavia is a very very very christian place it puts our biblebelt to shame.

No, it isn't. Sweden is 85% atheist, Norway 80% and I don't remember the percentage for the Danes, but it's up in the 80's as well. It is a very, very, very secular and atheistic place.

If that is true, you would have to come up with a very good reason why there are so many budhists in asia, so many muslim in arab countries, and so many christians in the US... Am I wrong?

Tabula rasa is wrong. The reason why that is, is because religion is one thing that we're not born with - it's something we're taught. That doesn't mean that we're not born with anything - morals such as not to kill other people we're born with thanks to evolution and more importantly natural selection.

Human species is completely devoid of any instincts whatsoever.

This is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. If you don't know anything about biology, don't talk about it. Mm'kay? Anyone who has studied human behaviour would laugh at that claim. I just cry. Just to show how strong our instincts are, it's well understood by psychologists that control over a person's sexuality is pretty much equivalent to control over the person itself.

So....in a free, democratic and supposedly tolerant society people have to hide their religious affiliation? Is this really the standard the human civilization should strive for?

The other way around goes for atheists in America. Not to mention homosexuals... what's that whole "coming out of the closet" thing again?

As for being a Christian here in Scandinavia, I believe Kadagar is overstating things. Religion is simply not talked about. It's something people kept for themselves, and it wasn't until I came in contact with theists from other places that did not keep it to themselves that I started speaking out like I do now.

Indoctrination? Yes, but this can be said of just about everything a parent tells their children, starting with political views, then moral views, then a general worldview, etc, etc.

Political views, yes. Let the kid develop critical thinking before getting in to politics.

Moral views? Not completely. For example, we're born with a mental barrier against killing other people thanks to evolution and natural selection, as I mentioned before. Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.

You'll have to define "general worldview" better for me to answer that as well, but I'm sure you can see my point here.

[rvg]

That's a weird world view. We are, after all, just very clever primates and primates do have instincts.

The survival instinct. The procreation instinct. The altruist instinct etc, etc. The last one is the instinct that keeps us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom..

Survival Instinct? No. Had it been an instinct, there would be no suicides and no self-sacrifice.

Procreation Instinct? No. Monks/Nuns and secular people who remain willingly childless clearly do not follow it.

Altruist Instinct? Once again, no. Acts of altruism are not universal.

Etc.? There is no etc. Humans have no instincts. If an "instinct" can be overcome, it's not an instinct. If an "instinct" is not universal for the species, it's not an instinct.

[Ronin]

Survival Instinct? No. Had it been an instinct, there would be no suicides and no self-sacrifice.

Procreation Instinct? No. Monks/Nuns and secular people who remain willingly childless clearly do not follow it.

Altruist Instinct? Once again, no. Acts of altruism are not universal.

Etc.? There is no etc. Humans have no instincts. If an "instinct" can be overcome, it's not an instinct. If an "instinct" is not universal for the species, it's not an instinct.

Instinct definition:

1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.


Please notice that because something is instinctive does not mean you have no choice but to follow it.


Humans have instincts, like all other animals, that does not mean we always follow them.

[Craterus]

Survival Instinct? No. Had it been an instinct, there would be no suicides and no self-sacrifice.

Procreation Instinct? No. Monks/Nuns and secular people who remain willingly childless clearly do not follow it.

Altruist Instinct? Once again, no. Acts of altruism are not universal.

Etc.? There is no etc. Humans have no instincts. If an "instinct" can be overcome, it's not an instinct. If an "instinct" is not universal for the species, it's not an instinct.

We can clearly go beyond our instincts. Overrule them. Use whatever term you like, those are still instincts.

Even more basically [than the survival instinct], an aversion to pain? We instinctively avoid it. Bring up sadism if you will but I'd argue that that is a psychological overruling of our instincts in order to achieve another instinct.

All humans pursue pleasure and happiness. Or at least what they think will grant them those two things.

That satisfy your criteria?

[rvg]

Instinct definition:

1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.


Please notice that because something is instinctive does not mean you have no choice but to follow it.


Humans have instincts, like all other animals, that does not mean we always follow them.

Then we clearly use the same word to describe different things. As far as I know instinct is a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden."

[Askthepizzaguy]

Depends on what the religion is.

Religion itself is a neutral concept. The aspects of religion are positive or negative.

Teaching good morals; Good
Teaching that God chose your people to be better than everyone else; Bad
Teaching respect and tolerance for others; Good
Teaching that women are inferior to men; Bad
Teaching that murder and theft and lying is wrong; Good
Teaching that heretics should be burned and prostitutes should be stoned; Bad
Teaching that Lord Xenu enslaved billions of people several trillion years ago and destroyed people in volcanoes with nuclear warheads and then the remnants of those slaves became little demons which invaded your body and cause all psychological problems and therefore you should never see a psychologist or take any kind of drugs and that you need to donate your life and your money to the cult of Scientology:

So bad it hurts my brain to imagine this thing still exists.

Crusades/jihads/holy wars:

So ignorant it makes my stomach do flips.

religious persecution in Russia and China: Just as bad as the bad parts of religion.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think that I might best express my response to this question with this reflection:

Were I to be hit by the proverbial bus, I would far rather my orphaned children were brought up by Don Corleone than Kadagar_AV.

[Ronin]

Then we clearly use the same word to describe different things. As far as I know instinct is a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden."

ok...I´ll try this another way..

do you agree that animals like dogs and tigers have instincts?

if so how do you explain the fact that these animals can be trained to change those behaviors?

When I see a hot young brunette walking down the street I want to have sex with her...that´s instinctive.....society whoever has "trained" us to know it is not correct to simply follow that instinct.......it´s the same thing as the tiger that learned to jump through hoops at the circus instead of ripping the trainers head off.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think that I might best express my response to this question with this reflection:

Were I to be hit by the proverbial bus, I would far rather my orphaned children were brought up by Don Corleone than Kadagar_AV.

To be fair, not all non-theists (such as myself) are as vehement in their opposition to religion.

Although your specific point is your own valid opinion, I would hope you'd not judge all non-theists the same way.