Is indoctrination of children child abuse?

[Alexrd]

however it cannot be denied that religion -- or any other belief system that commands acts of violence be committed -- can incite violence.

 

That's placing every religion on the same bag.

[Sabretooth]

That's placing every religion on the same bag.

 

He's referring to religion as a general concept, and not as specific religions taken as a whole.

 

There is a difference, however, between telling a child that if they play on the freeway they'll get hurt and telling a child if they play on the freeway they'll die in a fiery wreck and suffer for all eternity.

The first case is a consequence of an action, the second is a punishment tied to an action. If John Smith deals drugs, he may not suffer any direct consequences himself, but there is still a strong punishment for his act.

 

Taking religion to be a rudimentary constitution/rule book, wouldn't it then be reasonable to believe that modern penal codes are frightfully scary for children as well? Being told that killing someone will cause you to be locked up in a dank prison cell for the rest of your life doesn't sound like it's all that different from suffering in hell. And that's if you're in the First World - Third World prisons can be as good as hell...

 

But instead of driving us crazy with fear, these laws only help us bounce away from illegal behaviour and stay in the legal zone. Religion does more or less the same thing, but exaggerates a bit.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

That's placing every religion on the same bag.

No, it's placing religions that advocate violence into one group of 'things with the potential to incite violence' and religions that don't into another group of 'things that have less potential to incite violence'. Both of these groups fall under the category of 'things that divide people', however, and this, by nature, is prone to cause violence.

 

The first case is a consequence of an action, the second is a punishment tied to an action. If John Smith deals drugs, he may not suffer any direct consequences himself, but there is still a strong punishment for his act.

The point I was trying to make is that teaching caution is one thing, but teaching fear is quite another. However, I'm okay with debating semantics if you are.

 

Taking religion to be a rudimentary constitution/rule book, wouldn't it then be reasonable to believe that modern penal codes are frightfully scary for children as well? Being told that killing someone will cause you to be locked up in a dank prison cell for the rest of your life doesn't sound like it's all that different from suffering in hell. And that's if you're in the First World - Third World prisons can be as good as hell...

In the case of the legal system, I'd be against telling a child about the specifics of being in prison, and last I checked, society agrees with me. Feel free to walk up to a child and talk them about the awful conditions in jail, prison rape, and beatings if you'd like, however, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

But instead of driving us crazy with fear, these laws only help us bounce away from illegal behaviour and stay in the legal zone.

That's debatable, as labeling something as illegal or taboo can draw some to it.

 

To sum up: I'm opposed to the entire idea of morality and law being enforced by threats. Education and rehabilitation are far more effective and humane tactics.

[Samuel Dravis]

It's probably helpful to acknowledge that not everyone divides up morality and reality into separate areas of inquiry. Eg. Thomism, which acquired this idea from Aristotle. Hence the idea of punishment in some religious views is seen rather as the natural, unavoidable consequence of certain behaviors.

 

In this case, one would have to show that the parents are being remiss in their duty to protect and nurture their children. But to do that, one has to have a moral theory which at once makes it a duty to behave toward the children in that manner and also means that certain acts like indoctrination are incompatible with itself. But I don't know how it is possible to have morality without a social structure that includes something akin to indoctrination, even if it doesn't happen to be about any gods. In fact, I would suggest that such a "morality" would merely be a disguised emotivism, a social fiction masquerading as a moral system.

 

Personally I really don't feel like having the state decide who has the monopoly on "good" indoctrination.

[jonathan7]

I personally think that bombarding an uninformed mind with religious dogma is a form of abuse.

 

To take an entirely different line to everyone else, I shall reveal what I spent my day doing. I am currently privileged to be in Turkey touring with one of Yales Philosophy Professors, who is giving lectures and seminars on several aspects of Kant's philosophy. I was in discussion with an atheist philosopher at one of these events when I posed the following question;

 

"One of the main reasons Sir Anthony Flew lists for having recanted his atheism and taken up theism is the failure for the former theory to adequately answer the following question; Do you think their a logicically coherent explanation for morality from an atheistic point of view?"

 

The professor I was having this discussion with answered that it is meaningless to ask if their is rationality behind our ethics as they are derived from the evolution, as such ethics are arbitrary.

 

I returned with with the question, "Is killing babies, in the grand scale, removed from your personal opinion actually evil?" - His response was honest, in that he answered "No".

 

Do not mis-understand me, I am not saying that their are no moral atheists (as in individuals who are atheist and behave in a "good" way), just pointing out that in reality they have no logical reason for their morality, nor do I think do they have a rational argument for why humans should behave morally, and as such cannot compel others to act in a "moral" way.

 

All that is to point out, that as an atheist its meaningless for you to moan about "Religious Doctrination" being a form of child abuse, given that you have no rational explanation as to why child abuse is wrong.

 

With regards child abuse it seems to me religion doesn't really pay much a part in it, as some people are good parents and others bad... Some atheists are good parents others bad, ditto Muslims, Agnostics etc etc. Furthermore, this paranoia over religious indoctrination seems greatly over stated given there is no psychological evidence that individuals can be brainwashed, and generally from my observance often children rebel against strict religious parenting (at least in the west).

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

But to do that, one has to have a moral theory which at once makes it a duty to behave toward the children in that manner and also means that certain acts like indoctrination are incompatible with itself.

Not necessarily. As I mentioned before, indoctrination always carries with it the possibility of negative effects on the child if taken too far. However, in the area between a detrimental level of indoctrination and none whatsoever, there lies a point at which indoctrination becomes both protective and nurturing by way of allowing the child to survive in both society and the world. In this way, a moral code that dictates both the protection and indoctrination of children is in no way at odds with itself.

 

Personally I really don't feel like having the state decide who has the monopoly on "good" indoctrination.

So then, who should draw that line between 'good' and 'bad' indoctrination and enforce it? In addition, if a society is the sum of its individuals, why shouldn't society have the right to ensure that the indoctrination of the individual doesn't become detrimental to the society as a whole?

 

All that is to point out, that as an atheist its meaningless for you to moan about "Religious Doctrination" being a form of child abuse, given that you have no rational explanation as to why child abuse is wrong.

On the other hand, the atheist is free to choose his own moral code, and it's been made clear that question assumes child abuse is immoral, so while your circle of friends is impressive, your argument is, at best, irrelevant.

[Samuel Dravis]

To take an entirely different line to everyone else, I shall reveal what I spent my day doing. I am currently privileged to be in Turkey touring with one of Yales Philosophy Professors, who is giving lectures and seminars on several aspects of Kant's philosophy. I was in discussion with an atheist philosopher at one of these events when I posed the following question;

 

"One of the main reasons Sir Anthony Flew lists for having recanted his atheism and taken up theism is the failure for the former theory to adequately answer the following question; Do you think their a logicically coherent explanation for morality from an atheistic point of view?"

 

The professor I was having this discussion with answered that it is meaningless to ask if their is rationality behind our ethics as they are derived from the evolution, as such ethics are arbitrary.

 

I returned with with the question, "Is killing babies, in the grand scale, removed from your personal opinion actually evil?" - His response was honest, in that he answered "No".

 

Do not mis-understand me, I am not saying that their are no moral atheists (as in individuals who are atheist and behave in a "good" way), just pointing out that in reality they have no logical reason for their morality, nor do I think do they have a rational argument for why humans should behave morally, and as such cannot compel others to act in a "moral" way.

 

All that is to point out, that as an atheist its meaningless for you to moan about "Religious Doctrination" being a form of child abuse, given that you have no rational explanation as to why child abuse is wrong.

An interesting parallel is the discussion between Socrates, Polus and Callicles in Plato's Gorgias. Polus maintains a fragmented idea of what constitutes goodness, and hence Socrates is able to trap him into realizing he was inconsistent. But Callicles divorces his ideas completely from recieved notions of justice, etc, and Socrates is unable to force him to find fault with his system (Callicles being the counterpart of the atheist you met).

 

Not necessarily. As I mentioned before, indoctrination always carries with it the possibility of negative effects on the child if taken too far. However, in the area between a detrimental level of indoctrination and none whatsoever, there lies a point at which indoctrination becomes both protective and nurturing by way of allowing the child to survive in both society and the world. In this way, a moral code that dictates both the protection and indoctrination of children is in no way at odds with itself.

 

 

So then, who should draw that line between 'good' and 'bad' indoctrination and enforce it? In addition, if a society is the sum of its individuals, why shouldn't society have the right to ensure that the indoctrination of the individual doesn't become detrimental to the society as a whole?

As you may note, I am not against indoctrination as such, and I even suggested that it is a necessary part of morality. I simply object to the idea that the state (or any other entity) presenting one type of indoctrination as "the truth"-- when in fact there can be no such determination. Hence I tend to object to any heavy-handed approaches like the original post, where one type of indoctrination is replaced by another wholesale and it is presumed that by doing so moral advancement has been achieved. This can hardly be so when it suffers from exactly the same problem that supposedly precipitated the previous system's removal (that it "indoctrinates"). As free individuals we shouldn't have to deal with that sort of thing.

 

In this case there is probably something else which makes the offending system unappealing. For example, if you're not religious you're unlikely to think much of religious explanations. But there are plenty of other ways to argue against raising children religiously than that there is some type of indoctrination going on.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

As you may note, I am not against indoctrination as such, and I even suggested that it is a necessary part of morality. I simply object to the idea that the state (or any other entity) presenting one type of indoctrination as "the truth"-- when in fact there can be no such determination. Hence I tend to object to any heavy-handed approaches like the original post, where one type of indoctrination is replaced by another wholesale and it is presumed that by doing so moral advancement has been achieved. This can hardly be so when it suffers from exactly the same problem that supposedly precipitated the previous system's removal (that it "indoctrinates"). As free individuals we shouldn't have to deal with that sort of thing.

 

In this case there is probably something else which makes the offending system unappealing. For example, if you're not religious you're unlikely to think much of religious explanations. But there are plenty of other ways to argue against raising children religiously than that there is some type of indoctrination going on.

I'm not suggesting that 'good' indoctrination instills morality x and 'bad' indoctrination instills morality y. What I asked was who decides whether either x or y is harmful to the child given the intensity or method of indoctrination.

[Pho3nix]

All that is to point out, that as an atheist its meaningless for you to moan about "Religious Doctrination" being a form of child abuse, given that you have no rational explanation as to why child abuse is wrong.

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're one of those people who instigate that there would be no morals without religion... my rational explanation as to why child abuse is wrong is, well, common sense. And I know you can counter that with some clever Einstein quotes or pseudo-intellectual pretentious philosophical terms, but I think it's extremely ignorant to assume a person is void of any decency without religion.

 

And yes I'm aware that you will probably accuse me of misinterpreting your words, but the fact is there's a clear divide between people in this thread;

 

those who are religious and cling to whichever denomination they've chosen or been chosen for by their parents, and those who see past the bull**** and can actually look at this issue without any (for example) christian bias.

 

Therefore, I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere, just a bunch of words thrown at each other.

[Tommycat]

...there's a clear divide between people in this thread;

 

those who are religious and cling to whichever denomination they've chosen or been chosen for by their parents, and those who see past the bull**** and can actually look at this issue without any (for example) christian bias.

No, there's a clear divide between people who believe all religion is inherently wrong and therefore bad, and those who see past the BS and acknowledge that there may be a god and that we cannot say for certain that such teaching is wrong.

 

Therefore, I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere, just a bunch of words thrown at each other.

And yet you posted here.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're one of those people who instigate that there would be no morals without religion... my rational explanation as to why child abuse is wrong is, well, common sense. And I know you can counter that with some clever Einstein quotes or pseudo-intellectual pretentious philosophical terms, but I think it's extremely ignorant to assume a person is void of any decency without religion.

 

And yes I'm aware that you will probably accuse me of misinterpreting your words, but the fact is there's a clear divide between people in this thread;

 

those who are religious and cling to whichever denomination they've chosen or been chosen for by their parents, and those who see past the bull**** and can actually look at this issue without any (for example) christian bias.

 

Therefore, I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere, just a bunch of words thrown at each other.

I'd also like to point out that religion and/or faith doesn't necessarily dictate a moral code, for example, Kierkegaard's views on Abraham and a teleological suspension of the ethical demonstrates that faith can be downright immoral.

 

[Alkonium]

I'm sorry, but it seems to me you're one of those people who instigate that there would be no morals without religion... my rational explanation as to why child abuse is wrong is, well, common sense. And I know you can counter that with some clever Einstein quotes or pseudo-intellectual pretentious philosophical terms, but I think it's extremely ignorant to assume a person is void of any decency without religion.

 

And yes I'm aware that you will probably accuse me of misinterpreting your words, but the fact is there's a clear divide between people in this thread;

 

those who are religious and cling to whichever denomination they've chosen or been chosen for by their parents, and those who see past the bull**** and can actually look at this issue without any (for example) christian bias.

 

Therefore, I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere, just a bunch of words thrown at each other.

 

And to me, his point suggests an inability to perceive of a morality based on anything beyond fear of punishment, which is hardly morality at all, and more just greedy self-preservation without regard for others. Without this fear, any reason to behave is also gone. But, in place of fear, morality should be based on empathy and an understanding of the external ramifications of any immoral or unethical act.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

And to me, his point suggests an inability to perceive of a morality based on anything beyond fear of punishment, which is hardly morality at all, and more just greedy self-preservation without regard for others. Without this fear, any reason to behave is also gone. But, in place of fear, morality should be based on empathy and an understanding of the external ramifications of any immoral or unethical act.

 

So how is that any different from a morality based on religion? Religion offers rewards for obeying certain rules and punishment for those who don't comply.

[Alkonium]

So how is that any different from a morality based on religion? Religion offers rewards for obeying certain rules and punishment for those who don't comply.

 

It isn't. That's my point. I was referring to J7's post, which as an atheist with a good sense of right and wrong, I have to disagree with. I don't concern myself with how I might be punished or rewarded for what I do. What I concern myself with is how my actions affect others.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

It isn't. That's my point. I was referring to J7's post, which as an atheist with a good sense of right and wrong, I have to disagree with. I don't concern myself with how I might be punished or rewarded for what I do. What I concern myself with is how my actions affect others.

Oho. Apologies for the misunderstanding, my eyes and head hurt from perusing this thread for too long.

[Q]

Yes, I believe that indoctrination of children is abuse, be it religious indoctrination by parents or conformist indoctrination by the "education" system.

 

Both are equally destructive.

[Liverandbacon]

there's a clear divide between people in this thread;

 

those who are religious and cling to whichever denomination they've chosen or been chosen for by their parents, and those who see past the bull**** and can actually look at this issue without any (for example) christian bias.

 

Therefore, I don't think this discussion will lead anywhere, just a bunch of words thrown at each other.

 

Probably the right conclusion (though that's pretty much the nature of any internet debate).

 

However, do you seriously not see the irony in criticizing 'bias' when you're dividing the thread between people 'clinging' to beliefs that don't align with yours, and those who 'see past the bull****' (agree with you).

 

I'm not even saying you're wrong, just saying that everyone should admit that they're biased as **** when it comes to morality. Despite the fact that the philosophy portion of my PPE degree convinced me that there is no objective, universal code of morality, I'm perfectly happy to live by my subjective moral code, and convince/force others to follow it to the best of my ability. I just acknowledge that I'm arrogant, biased, and have no universally acceptable 'right' to do so.

[Totenkopf]

in·doc·tri·nate 

–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

2. to teach or inculcate.

3. to imbue with learning.

 

So, is it any less abusive to teach one's children to look down their noses at people who believe in a god/s......lest they be labled irrational, delusional and/or infantile for entertaining the idea? Atheists are just as likely to engage in indoctrinating their children as religious folks. And as Q points out, schools engage in it all the time to achieve some type of conformity (currently in things like man-made global warming etc....). Fact is, theist or atheist, none of us has cornered the market on knowledge about why we came to be (ie not simply the mechanics of how...ie evolution or "adam's rib"). Since absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence, neither side can claim victory in this battle of ideas.

[Samuel Dravis]

I'm not suggesting that 'good' indoctrination instills morality x and 'bad' indoctrination instills morality y. What I asked was who decides whether either x or y is harmful to the child given the intensity or method of indoctrination.

Since there's no single overarching moral narrative that people agree to, various incommensurable values obtained from different moral systems can be used to justify different positions. For example, the idea that harm must be minimized could lead some people to say that any actions which may lead to depression are crimes. Others who value autonomy more will be more inclined to allow some harms but not others. This is what in fact happens, with parents being considered competent to raise their children unless they commit some fairly serious violation of our expectations. The fact that no one is capable of winning an argument on this one way or another should surprise no one who has paid any attention to abortion debates before. Approaching a debate from different premises will always lead to different conclusions.

 

I personally believe that parents are generally capable of raising their children without having anyone interfere. There are certain actions which are unacceptable (like training children to violate the law) but causing psychological trauma through teaching people religion doesn't seem like it is all that harmful given everyone I know who was raised religious-- at least not harmful enough to justify violating everyone's personal liberty wholesale. I experienced that "trauma" myself but anyone who rearranges their belief systems will experience the same thing. This is usually called growing up.

 

Maybe everyone should be forced to keep believing what they started out with and thus prevent harm that way.

[Tommycat]

I have found that people who have forced a belief down their child's throat generally tend to have children who believe the opposite of their parents. Where those who have taught and left it open to their child to decide have tended to follow in their parent's footsteps.

 

As for the threat of eternal damnation, since we're not talking about the validity of claims, I guess we can now go after all those global warming supporting teachers for abuse as well. They teach that if you don't follow the new doctrine of global warming, we'll all die in a global catastrophe. And worse, that they MUST convert everyone to their way, or EVERYONE dies.

 

If it's just the fear we're talking about as abuse, then any parent who lets their child watch the news channels is now an abusive parent.

 

And having raised children, I must say that sometimes the only way to end the "Why?" is to keep going to the extreme.

 

As to the morality... Well different cultures place their morals in different places. For instance, murder while it is wrong in mostly Christian cultures it is not wrong in cultures that do not share our beliefs(honor killings, cannibalism, and even, depending on your position, abortion). Suicide is also another one which is only bad in certain cultures. While in others it was a method of regaining your family's honor(seppuku for example).

[VeniVidiVicous]

What if their religion is correct then? Not saying any religion is correct, BUT to them it is.

 

I'm sure there are a few who totally 100% believe in christianity, the westboro baptist church are the only ones I can think of who fully follow the old testament though.

 

To the parents the religion is the truth. A failure to teach your kids that playing on the freeway will get them killed would be borderline abusive behavior. Would it be wise to tell your kids never to listen to what a cop tells them?

 

That's incomparable imo.

You could be a religous (or atheist) parent and still fail to teach your kids not to play on the freeway/tell them to ignore cops.

[Working Class Hero]

Since absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence, neither side can claim victory in this battle of ideas.

I got a BIG problem with this statement, one that I've often heard from religious folks.

 

I can believe that rabbits communicate by sending their thoughts each other by a so-far undiscovered form of communication and will eventually take over human's brains through telepathy, and you can't prove that I'm wrong. But as there's absolutely no ****ing evidence this occurs, you'd be justified in saying that I'm abusing my children by telling them to collect rabbits in the house and help them achieve their ascendancy over the human race.

 

And yet parents teach their children there's an invisible man watching whom they must do their utmost not to offend.

 

I'm sure there are a few who totally 100% believe in christianity, the westboro baptist church are the only ones I can think of who fully follow the old testament though.

The WBC doesn't follow the old testament. They have yet to actually stone any gays.

[Totenkopf]

I got a BIG problem with this statement, one that I've often heard from religious folks.

 

I can believe that rabbits communicate by sending their thoughts each other by a so-far undiscovered form of communication and will eventually take over human's brains through telepathy, and you can't prove that I'm wrong. But as there's absolutely no ****ing evidence this occurs, you'd be justified in saying that I'm abusing my children by telling them to collect rabbits in the house and help them achieve their ascendancy over the human race.

 

And yet parents teach their children there's an invisible man watching whom they must do their utmost not to offend.

 

As usual misses the point. Neither side can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of a "God", so all are free to believe whatever they like..... As Tommy and others have pointed out here in various ways, the term "child abuse" is very elastic in scope and not inherently universal.

[Working Class Hero]

Yeah, you're correct that nobody can disprove a god's existence per se, but my point was that religion is the only field of study that I can think of where people can believe really crazy **** without any need to have positive proof for their beliefs.

 

Teaching your children to think without logic or reason seems abusive to me.

[VeniVidiVicous]

The WBC doesn't follow the old testament. They have yet to actually stone any gays.

 

This is true, I suppose none of the practising christians practice it in it's original form, still though you "have" to respect their belief system.