Is Teaching Religion To Children A Form Of Child Abuse?

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by Okiefreak, Mar 20, 2017.

  1. Moonglow181

    Moonglow181 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    Do not assume you ever know why i feel the way I do about anything....fear of learning about religion or being exposed to it is not the issue...never was....Nothing in me ever believed in a god since I can remember at age 3....
    Like I said...all of the religions , including evolution must be included then, or else it is just brain washing of one particular religion, now isn't it?.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    Calling religion child abuse is to belittle actual child abuse.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Chigurh

    Chigurh Members

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    55
    Have you read the Quran? edit: Or the Old Testament of the Bible?
     
  4. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    Not the Quran, but the Old Testament, yes.
     
  5. Chigurh

    Chigurh Members

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    55
    I read your comment wrong. I meant to agree with you.
     
  6. Dejavu~

    Dejavu~ Members

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    185
    No-one's "calling religion child abuse", but if you think pushing it on kids isn't a form of abuse, you might want to try and explain why.
     
  7. Dejavu~

    Dejavu~ Members

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    185
    Evolution is a religion?!

    Religion doesn't really evolve, except in terms of mutation... lol

    I can't help but think of its spread to be like that of a disease, nor can I idealize it as a force for socialization! Its 'unifying' infuence lies wholly in systematizing thought. In the subjugation of an idea rather than the question of a ruling one.
     
  8. Dejavu~

    Dejavu~ Members

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    185
    Teachers ( as opposed to clergy )
    In an historical context, predominantly.
    Everything.
    Teens.
     
  9. Moonglow181

    Moonglow181 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    No, I meant the other school of thought must be taught, as well.....I would hope children have people who encourage them to think for themselves....but more often than not, that is not the case.
     
  10. Chigurh

    Chigurh Members

    Messages:
    356
    Likes Received:
    55
    I'm confused now. Does the comment mean: religion is so bad it belittles child abuse, or saying religion is on par with child abuse isn't right?
    I think fundamentalism is child abuse, to make my point.
     
  11. tumbling.dice

    tumbling.dice Visitor

    There should be more emphasis placed on skepticism and the scientific method rather than the findings of science. I'm not saying that the scientific method it a useful tool in all cases, rather that it necessarily requires one to think for his or herself. It was actually learning about the scientific method that lead me to being skeptical about religion and politics.

    http://phyz.org/skepticism/
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Thinking back at the teachers I had in high school, I think we'd be better off leaving it in the hands of those "abusive" parents. And our textbooks are selected by state textbook committees. As I'm sure you know, states in my neighborhood have struggled with the teaching of evolution. What would they do with comparative religion in states where lots of folks think non-Christian religions are demonic?
     
  13. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,385
    Oh, so you are making the assumption that other religions would not be taught?
    When I was in college and studied "comparative religious studies" it did encompass all belief systems.
    So what are you going on about?
     
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    High school teachers are held to ethical, intellectual, and legal standards in regards to what they teach children. Parents are not.

    Not all public school systems select textbooks by state committees. Everywhere I taught textbooks were selected by differing standards depending on the subject area. For example, math books were selected by a math department committee at the middle and high school level in conjunction with the director of secondary education and the mission statement of the department and school district. I was teaching in a technical area and was free to choose my own textbook for that particular class. All textbooks are approved by the school board, but mostly that was a formality.

    School districts that struggle with the teaching of evolution are those districts that have elected ignorant dogmatic religious zealots to their school boards or governing agents.
    Comparative religion classes in areas that think non-Christian religions are demonic would be a farce if the course of study was written and approved by those think that way.
     
  15. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    I believe she is suggesting that comparative religions should be taught in a way that also includes the fact that not everyone agrees that there is a need or value to religion.
    While teaching about the various differing religions the student should also be made aware of the fact that there are those who don't believe in any religion.
     
  16. Moonglow181

    Moonglow181 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    4,916
    I will try and explain as best I can.

    last night I was not going on about anything, Noxious. I was answering Deja Vu and clarifying that I did not think evolution theory was any religion.
    I was not sure if he was joking. Can never be sure......

    Originally, I answered on this thread, as i read somewhere on this forum that the Supreme Court was making teaching religion mandatory for schools. Of course, my back went up....as the "mandatory" of it made me feel that way. I did not look into what that ruling really means, but I imagined grammar school children...not high school kids, who i think already lean one way or another with their religion or lack of religion...or universities. I was thinking about little children....imagining them made to sit through a Bible study class room. I can only go with how I felt in grammar school.and not knowing what to do with myself when silent prayer every day as a little child, every day in public school was mandatory.......I just looked down like everyone else...but it was uncomfortable for me.

    I am for learning about all kinds of schools of thoughts and religions....but the Supreme Court is already favoring Bible belt people in wanting to over turn Roe v Wade,....and I am angry anyway.....here. That is a big agenda for many people who voted for trump.

    I say...ok, well, what about sending people to war.....slaughtering animals that have awful lives in farm factories, etc....?....so i see the hypocrisy in much of what the fundamentalists are trying to do.....Do the anti abortion people just concentrate on abortion...? off the subject now...but it adds to how I feel about things and that I thought politics was supposed to be free of and from religion...... I do not feel that the govt has any business in it at all.they have no right in that. Not every teacher in the world is gifted.....some do try to force their own agendas, too.....

    I was not worried about older kids at the high school level.....because as I said, I think they already lean one way or another. I was concerned about developing minds....and being steered in a way that might not be a choice for them a little later.

    i do not know if I made myself clear yet, but I tried.
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    The thread is asking if it *is* child abuse, so the burden of explanation isn't on someone who thinks it's not.

    But to me, reading the Bible or sitting in the pews on a Sunday is not the same as being neglected, molested or beaten. Now that's child abuse.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. guerillabedlam

    guerillabedlam _|=|-|=|_

    Messages:
    29,419
    Likes Received:
    6,296
    The thread title is a question, presumably neutral. Assertions either way would require explanations why or why not someone thinks it is or isn't abuse. Ironically, I'm kind of implementing a similar approach here I've heard theists use when an atheist says "God Does Not Exist", but I think there are some crucial differences, namely abuse can be physically apparent.

    The op mentions that this thread is started from statements of another thread, where that poster suggested religion is 'forced' which Deja-Vu also appears to be suggesting, the op opted for the term 'teaching' in the title here, perhaps an intentional euphemism but I suspect they likely have somewhat different things in mind. I think Richard Dawkins and the like who make the argument that Religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse, usually approximate a meaning more like the former.

    The operative phrase to the question is "form of abuse." For instance, Islamic parents forcing a child to strap bombs to themselves to set them out on a "suicide" mission is abuse, which is likely an action forced on the child by the parent's religious beliefs . There is no reason to suspect a young child could fully grasp the consequences of what their parents are 'forcing' them to do. Perhaps the same could be said about catholic priest molestations.


    Beyond those and similar examples, there is much more a gray area as to what could or could not be considered abuse when 'teaching', as now we are primarily dealing with the term abuse in a more abstract and cognitive sense.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Dejavu~

    Dejavu~ Members

    Messages:
    822
    Likes Received:
    185
    Hey! I was just fussing over your wording! It could have been read to mean... Oh never mind! :-D

    lol, the latter I'm sure. Neoprene Queen is still dodging the question directly, though she/he seems to be suggesting their answer is no. Which is why I asked for an explanation. Fundamentalism isn't child abuse, unless introduced as truth to a child.

    Oh, I meant teachers, not excuses for teachers. lol As far as unbuckling the bible belt goes, I can only suggest it be done slowly, and carefully...

    I hate to be serious Moon, honestly! I am far too carefree still for all my years! But, if need be, I can be deadly serious. I'd hate to see you be misunderstood. :-D Evolution is fake news for too many already! lol


    No, the thread's asking if teaching it to kids is abuse. And you still haven't said why you think it isn't ( assuming from your other responses that you do. )
     
  20. Noserider

    Noserider Goofy-Footed Member

    Messages:
    9,578
    Likes Received:
    6,215
    Because teaching kids religion isn't done with the explicit intent to harm them.

    See a movie like Carrie. It can be used as a form of abuse, but the simple act of teaching a child about religion isn't in itself child abuse, because there is no intent to harm the child. A car can be used to intentionally kill somebody, but that doesn't make driving attempted murder.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice