Is indoctrination of children child abuse?

[purifier]

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.

 

 

 

What is so abusive about having faith in something, while living in/on a world of pain and suffering like this? Having a belief in something outside the norm, gives some individuals a ray of hope in their lives who want it. To totally deny them mentally of any religious thoughts or beliefs is just as abusive to me. And besides you may introduce a child to a religious or spiritual belief until adulthood, or until they are able to make decisions on their own, but once a child reaches the ability to think on their own, it doesn't matter what a child's parents has taught them over the years. Because the child eventually picks or makes a choice in what he or she wants to believe in, there are also outside world influence that plays a part in that individuals thoughts as well.

 

So no one on this planet can really force an individual deep down in their own mind to believe in anything that the individual doesn't want to believe in, as long as that individual has doubts in the back of his/her mind. Not even through verbal threats of hellfire and brimstone. I've seen many individuals here on LF and in real life who have demonstrated perfect examples of this. Some were told by their parents they should believe in this or that concerning their family's religion, but later rebuked those beliefs as soon as they felt they were old enough to separate from their parents and make their own decisions concerning what part of any religion pertained to them.

 

I never heard anybody say they were abused by their parents mentally, because their parents tryed to teach them about the morals of religion. Of course if they were physically abused by the parent because the child said he/she didn't believe in a god or rebuked the family religion, that is definitly child abuse.

 

If we are to consider teaching a child about the morals of religion and it's consequences because it's not obeyed as abusive, then we should consider teaching a child about public rules, saftey and laws that are not obeyed and the consequences from it as abusive as well. A influential threat is a threat, whether it's real or unreal, regardless of what it may pertain to.

[Totenkopf]

....still though you "have" to respect their belief system.

 

Actually, no, at least not in "free societies". All you "have" to respect is their right to have a belief system, not the beliefs themselves. What you do have to deal with is that they have as much right as you to try to influence how their society operates as you do.

 

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.

 

What, you mean like the almost pantheistic "man-made, the polar bears are dying, etc.. global warming" theory? Yeah, stuff like that never happens in "rational society".

[VeniVidiVicous]

Actually, no, at least not in "free societies". All you "have" to respect is their right to have a belief system, not the beliefs themselves. What you do have to deal with is that they have as much right as you to try to influence how their society operates as you do.

 

With that logic let me put a theory foward.

 

If science teachers in schools where told they had to change to content of what they are teaching as to appease to certain religous groups is that respecting their right to a belief system or the belief itself?

[Q]

But they're not.

 

Point?

[Totenkopf]

With that logic let me put a theory foward.

 

If science teachers in schools where told they had to change to content of what they are teaching as to appease to certain religous groups is that respecting their right to a belief system or the belief itself?

 

Well, given that the anthropological global warming theory is a current example of that....which "religion" is being appeased? Fact is, it's not a matter of "respecting" a belief system (afterall, people are still allowed to vociferously oppose such moves in a free society) but the democratic process that allowed any such group the upper hand in achieving their goal, which can always be overturned in the end using the same process. In self-proclaimed free societies, I'm not remotely obligated to respect your point of view, just your right to hold it w/o fear of govt persecution.

[Alexrd]

But they're not.

 

Point?

 

This post with your avatar is priceless.

[VeniVidiVicous]

But they're not.

 

Point?

 

But they are.

 

In America for example there have been a few attempts by certain christians

to have science classes changed to teach intelligent design.

I don't keep fully up to date with it since i'm not from the U.S. though.

 

Well, given that the anthropological global warming theory is a current example of that....which "religion" is being appeased? Fact is, it's not a matter of "respecting" a belief system (afterall, people are still allowed to vociferously oppose such moves in a free society) but the democratic process that allowed any such group the upper hand in achieving their goal, which can always be overturned in the end using the same process. In self-proclaimed free societies, I'm not remotely obligated to respect your point of view, just your right to hold it w/o fear of govt persecution.

 

The global warming's a tricky one. That's been used (and abused) by everything from conspiracy theorist groups to politicians all using it to their own ends. Personally i'm not worried about it.

So I suppose in nswering your question that those peoples religion are being appeased. If you want to assign the term "religion" to something that a few of them may be fanatical about, I know you probably know this already but I still feel obliged to point out that those people who are into global warming in a big way has nothing to do with a god or gods so it's not really a religion.

At the same time I understand your point they take it seriously and all that.

[Totenkopf]

But they are.

 

In America for example there have been a few attempts by certain christians

to have science classes changed to teach intelligent design.

I don't keep fully up to date with it since i'm not from the U.S. though.

 

 

 

The global warming's a tricky one. That's been used (and abused) by everything from conspiracy theorist groups to politicians all using it to their own ends. Personally i'm not worried about it.

So I suppose in nswering your question that those peoples religion are being appeased. If you want to assign the term "religion" to something that a few of them may be fanatical about, I know you probably know this already but I still feel obliged to point out that those people who are into global warming in a big way has nothing to do with a god or gods so it's not really a religion.

At the same time I understand your point they take it seriously and all that.

 

Funny thing is, I'm not worried about the other either. Even if you put intelligent design into a science curriculum, you could virtually deal with that approach in one class or less and then concentrate on evolution for the rest of the school year/s. I figure by the time you break for summer, most of the kids will have forgotten it anyway. Those that hew strongly to "God did it" likely aren't necessarily interested in the how part anyway. Hell, you could probably dispense with the intelligent design in the first few minutes of the first class for that matter. Evolution is not an inherently secular concept and thus not incompatible with a god-centered belief system in principle. For instance, the Catholic Church isn't opposed to evolution as an explanation for how life developed on earth/in the universe. It does believe that God is the prime mover behind such phenomenon, but atheists have no proof either that we just sprung, essentially, out of nowhere. I figure that as long as science class is used to explain our understanding of how life developed...and stays away from the more controversial "where did it all come from?"....it's no real big deal.

[mur'phon]

Come on Tot, I know you aren't a fan of climate change, but unlike a religious belief it's something that (at least in principle) can be disproven. You know the drill, theory gets made, people try to disprove it (as science can never prove), theory is modified/replaced by a new one, people try to disprove it etc. This is somewhat different from a religious belief which by default can't be disproven.

[Q]

But they are.

 

In America for example there have been a few attempts by certain christians

to have science classes changed to teach intelligent design.

I don't keep fully up to date with it since i'm not from the U.S. though.

Attempting != succeeding, and they did not succeed.

 

So, no, they're not. Red herring.

[Totenkopf]

Come on Tot' date=' I know you aren't a fan of climate change, but unlike a religious belief it's something that (at least in principle) can be disproven. You know the drill, theory gets made, people try to disprove it (as science can never prove), theory is modified/replaced by a new one, people try to disprove it etc. This is somewhat different from a religious belief which by default can't be disproven.[/quote']

 

Problem, murph, is that it isn't often presented as a theory but drilled into kids like any other form of indoctrination. If AGW were merely presented as a theory and not a forgone conclusion, you might have a stronger point. Even evolution is presented as fact, not theory. Science can often be as doctrinaire as religion......until the doctrines/dogmas change at some later date. But before you (or anyone) says I'm vs evolution.....I'm not. It's currently the best theory we have to explain how we came to be.

[VeniVidiVicous]

I figure that as long as science class is used to explain our understanding of how life developed...and stays away from the more controversial "where did it all come from?"....it's no real big deal.

 

I can agree to that actually.

 

Attempting != succeeding, and they did not succeed.

 

So, no, they're not. Red herring.

 

at·tempt (-tmpt)

tr.v. at·tempt·ed, at·tempt·ing, at·tempts

1. To try to perform, make, or achieve: attempted to read the novel in one sitting; attempted a difficult dive.

2. Archaic To tempt.

3. Archaic To attack with the intention of subduing.

n.

1. An effort or a try.

2. An attack; an assault: an attempt on someone's life.

 

Attempting to do something is not the same as succeeding in doing something there is a difference.

 

Why don't you go lick a herring or something?

[purifier]

This is somewhat different from a religious belief which by default can't be disproven.

 

 

Not according to Al Gore, he believes Global Warming is "An Inconvenient Truth" to us nonbelievers. And makes threats or puts out fears of impending DOOM if we all don't change our polluting/sinful ways.

 

I have yet to see anyone disprove or convince Al Gore and his followers that Global Warming is not real. As long as they believe in it, it is real to them. So there is nothing you can say or do that would sway them from their beliefs, kinda like religion.

[Tommycat]

Honestly the Global Warming alarmists can be a religion. A religion does not require there to be a god/supreme being(s). In fact some sects of Wicca do not have a god(per se.. as in they worship nature itself). But they are a religion none the less.

 

I was trying to move the argument away from the factuality of religions. More leaning towards finding the trigger that one would find to call it abusive to teach without evidence that the person is somehow completely wrong. Nobody can truly know whether any religion is right or wrong. So the firm belief that teaching it or instilling the fears of what may come after cannot be called abuse. The examples of the freeway were from the standpoint that IF the afterlife DOES exist and IS how their religious doctrine specifies it, it may be in fact harmful NOT to teach them the consequences of their actions.

 

With teaching religion or any number of widely held beliefs(such as AGW), it should not be considered abuse unless it crosses well defined lines. For instance, teaching a kid to stay away from playing on the freeway(something we can pretty well all accept as something they shouldn't do) with a lead pipe is abuse. Telling them they could end up broken paralyzed or even dead in many painful ways, I don't see as abusive. Anyone who's raised kids would recognize that sometimes kids just won't listen unless you tell them a consequence that hits home.

 

And honestly if we're going to say that teaching kids about something that is(as far as we know) non-existant is abuse, then there's a whole bunch of stuff that parents would not be allowed to teach their kids about...

[Q]

Attempting to do something is not the same as succeeding in doing something there is a difference.

Um, duh? "!=" means "does not equal".

Why don't you go lick a herring or something?

Why don't you grow up?

[VeniVidiVicous]

"!=" means "does not equal".

 

Well I didn't know that.

 

Why don't you grow up?

 

Why don't you get a sense of humour?

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

^^^ Why don't you recognize that Kavar's is a "place for serious discussion", VVV?

 

A Google search could have illuminated the abbreviation for "!=" == "does not equal".

 

I was trying to move the argument away from the factuality of religions. More leaning towards finding the trigger that one would find to call it abusive to teach without evidence that the person is somehow completely wrong. Nobody can truly know whether any religion is right or wrong. So the firm belief that teaching it or instilling the fears of what may come after cannot be called abuse.

Your first premise is sound. There can be no facts regarding religion, it is an unjustified belief. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise in the least, it actually is a bit absurd, IMO. Your choice of the words "firm belief that teaching..." is a nice qualifier that does provide you some safety, but it also means to me that you don't really have a strong argument.

 

Say, for example, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I also want my child to understand that for the sun to rise tomorrow, he will have to behave in a certain way, or the sun will not rise! By inductive reasoning we all conclude (and have a "firm belief") that the sun will rise tomorrow, and we have witnessed that the sun rises every day of our lives. It is not necessary that this be the case, however, it is a somewhat justified, but not completely, belief, that could be wrong at any time. It would be awfully scary to a child to think that the fate of the world hinged on their behavior. Abusive, really. This is an extreme, perhaps absurd example, but it is analogous.

 

That the sun rises the next day despite the child's behavior, good or bad, can potentially send a mixed message. If the child is headstrong and says screw you Dad, I will behave how I want and the sun can go to hell.... it still rises! Now you have a rebel with a cause.... created by a parent placing a silly belief in a child's mind.

[Totenkopf]

That the sun rises the next day despite the child's behavior, good or bad, can potentially send a mixed message. If the child is headstrong and says screw you Dad, I will behave how I want and the sun can go to hell.... it still rises! Now you have a rebel with a cause.... created by a parent placing a silly belief in a child's mind.

 

---now only if it were that easy to prove/disprove the existence of "God".

[Tommycat]

Your first premise is sound. There can be no facts regarding religion, it is an unjustified belief. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise in the least, it actually is a bit absurd, IMO. Your choice of the words "firm belief that teaching..." is a nice qualifier that does provide you some safety, but it also means to me that you don't really have a strong argument.

 

Say, for example, I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I also want my child to understand that for the sun to rise tomorrow, he will have to behave in a certain way, or the sun will not rise! By inductive reasoning we all conclude (and have a "firm belief") that the sun will rise tomorrow, and we have witnessed that the sun rises every day of our lives. It is not necessary that this be the case, however, it is a somewhat justified, but not completely, belief, that could be wrong at any time. It would be awfully scary to a child to think that the fate of the world hinged on their behavior. Abusive, really. This is an extreme, perhaps absurd example, but it is analogous.

 

That the sun rises the next day despite the child's behavior, good or bad, can potentially send a mixed message. If the child is headstrong and says screw you Dad, I will behave how I want and the sun can go to hell.... it still rises! Now you have a rebel with a cause.... created by a parent placing a silly belief in a child's mind.

The problem is that there can not be a proof/disproof of the factuality of an afterlife. Since we cannot prove there is no afterlife, we cannot say that whatever extreme a religion concocts for the afterlife is real or not. Your example is flawed because of your use of something visible and tangible(sorta), with results that can be seen and verified, is not analogous to the teaching of something that may or may not be true(even if the likelihood is that it isn't).

 

Lets use something that should hit more home, rather than Christian as the example. According to most books in the series, Dark Side Force users cannot become force ghosts(I know... some exceptions... Just follow with me). Following the path of the light side you can learn a technique that allows you to live on beyond your life, or become one with the force. The portion that cannot be verified would be what happens to dark siders. IF the expected end for darksiders is that their spirit would be in pain and suffer rather than the peaceful Light Siders, would it not be in the best interest of the students(padawans) to warn them of that danger?

 

Whoops... bad example... Fear is an emotion of the dark side...

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

Lets use something that should hit more home, rather than Christian as the example. (...) Following the path of the light side you can learn a technique that allows you to live on beyond your life (...) IF the expected end for darksiders is that their spirit would be in pain and suffer rather than the peaceful Light Siders, would it not be in the best interest of the students(padawans) to warn them of that danger?

 

Come on! That's exactly Christian doctrine! Good people (following the rules of religion) go to heaven, evil ones (the rest) suffer in hell.

 

Another example in the same spirit.

Invisible Pink Unicorn showed herself to me in my dream and said that Christianity is a false and evil* religion. Everyone should convert to Invisible Pink Unicornism or suffer the consequences: bad children will get eaten by their teddy bears and reincarnated as platypuses (who'd want that?!) so they could convert later without their parents' biases. Adults will get stick on the IPU's horn and suffer for eternity.

I think that it's in everyone's best interest to convert right now! And start teaching children about it in schools.

That is of course unless you can PROVE that there are no unicorns. Because it's not my role to prove existence of IPU Anyone who don't agree with me should first prove that what I wrote is false (starting with IPU showing in my dream).

 

*I really think Christianity is evil, but most followers think otherwise because they never read the Bible. These people tend to think that Islam is evil, but they don't see that it has almost the same rules.

[Tommycat]

Come on! That's exactly Christian doctrine! Good people (following the rules of religion) go to heaven, evil ones (the rest) suffer in hell.

 

Another example in the same spirit.

Invisible Pink Unicorn showed herself to me in my dream and said that Christianity is a false and evil* religion. Everyone should convert to Invisible Pink Unicornism or suffer the consequences: bad children will get eaten by their teddy bears and reincarnated as platypuses (who'd want that?!) so they could convert later without their parents' biases. Adults will get stick on the IPU's horn and suffer for eternity.

I think that it's in everyone's best interest to convert right now! And start teaching children about it in schools.

That is of course unless you can PROVE that there are no unicorns. Because it's not my role to prove existence of IPU Anyone who don't agree with me should first prove that what I wrote is false (starting with IPU showing in my dream).

 

*I really think Christianity is evil, but most followers think otherwise because they never read the Bible. These people tend to think that Islam is evil, but they don't see that it has almost the same rules.

The point of it is not whether the religion is true or false. I could call it "Monkey toed man-god" religion. What I'm talking about is post life consequences. Something that nobody has been able to verify the existence of. Many who have had "Near Death Experiences" CLAIM that they felt something, but there are many explanations for why they may have felt that. Many religions have similar rules. Even Native American religions have similar rules to Christianity.

 

Simplified rules of a religion:

Don't Kill(at least not the faithful)

Don't steal

Don't be a jerk.

Simplified consequences:

You get sent to a bad place

Simplified benefit:

You get to live on in a happy place.

 

That's pretty well most religions. It also tends to pretty well coincide with our legal system. The bad place is prison, the good place is anywhere, BUT prison. The difference is that with religion, there would be no "getting away with it" because the omnipotent/omnipresent being(s) is(are) watching you.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

A Google search could have illuminated the abbreviation for "!=" == "does not equal".

and that "==" != "="/":=" as the former implies xnor and not assignment

[Tommycat]

Actually, a Google search would yield neither revelation. Since the mathematical operators confuse the database back end, you get no results.

 

However you COULD go to the urban dictionary and get that answer, and that == is the correct usage for equals... or rather is equal to anything in the range... Programming... ugh...

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

Yes, the simplified rules are OK (except for the brackets in first one). They are also known as common sense and propriety. The problem is with the 'advanced rules' which mostly concern absurd rituals and denial of the basic ones for everyone different than followers of said religion (like "Don't kill" and "Stone the unfaithful" or even "Stone the faithful if he's gay").

Is it really worth... well worth what? The fear that punishment will be inevitable? There is a conviction in society that there is no perfect crime and sooner or later any criminal will be caught. Besides what is the difference between prison and hell? Infinity. Why do we people release prisoners and not hold them for ever (until death or just kill for any crime) like God in hell? Because prison is not only punishment but also place of reclamation, changing prisoners attitude to make them useful to society (at least in it ought to). Religions don't care about reclamation, if you don't follow the rules you'll suffer for ever, and ever, and ever and even longer without hope for second chance (maybe with exception of Hindu, you'll just get bad karma and will suffer one more life).

And since any religion is just as good as any other which should be thought to children and why?

[Tommycat]

Yes, the simplified rules are OK (except for the brackets in first one). They are also known as common sense and propriety. The problem is with the 'advanced rules' which mostly concern absurd rituals and denial of the basic ones for everyone different than followers of said religion (like "Don't kill" and "Stone the unfaithful" or even "Stone the faithful if he's gay").

Is it really worth... well worth what? The fear that punishment will be inevitable? There is a conviction in society that there is no perfect crime and sooner or later any criminal will be caught. Besides what is the difference between prison and hell? Infinity. Why do we people release prisoners and not hold them for ever (until death or just kill for any crime) like God in hell? Because prison is not only punishment but also place of reclamation, changing prisoners attitude to make them useful to society (at least in it ought to). Religions don't care about reclamation, if you don't follow the rules you'll suffer for ever, and ever, and ever and even longer without hope for second chance (maybe with exception of Hindu, you'll just get bad karma and will suffer one more life).

And since any religion is just as good as any other which should be thought to children and why?

 

Actually many religions aside from Christianity allow for the ones sentenced to "hell" to embrace the good ways and go to "heaven" post life.

 

As for which religion: I'm not picking any. They all have their merits, and their flaws(see my earlier post about believing they are all in some way wrong). But that's my point. I cannot choose which religion is right to teach a child, if you even teach them at all(again, note how I have REPEATEDLY said, I'm not claiming any religion is right). Religion is the parent's choice, as is morality they wish to impart on their children(obviously so long as it does not interfere with others' rights to freedom of religion, and not violating any local laws).