Is indoctrination of children child abuse?

[Tommycat]

That said, we're getting a -wee- bit off topic here, I think.

Like how Charlie Sheen is a -wee- bit crazy?

 

Actually it's not too far off topic, as it shows that some people are so biased against religion that they believe teaching it at all is abuse(see how I brought it right back)...

[Primogen]

Of course, by that logic teaching your child just about anything could be construed as abusive. Obviously, you can't ever display any sign of religious, political, or moral views in the presence of a child to prevent contaminating his/her mind.

[Sabretooth]

Yesss.... uncontaminated minds... are the most luscious... yes...

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

Uff... a lot of replies. I'll try to sort it out somehow...

 

1. Buddhism and nuking Beijing.

If there is any single quote of Buddha to his students that they should spread the religion and kill infidels and those who don't want to convert I'd find Buddhism responsible for such an attack. (@Primogen Buddhism is not my personal philosophy, I used it as an example because I don't know of any act of violence, religious war etc. connected to Buddhism, well I know about one or two but the Buddhists were never the attackers)

 

2. @Sbretooth

Look, can we please stop using Religion as a synonym for Christianity. It's really bugging me.

I'll try my best. It's just because I live in a Catholic country (some statistics say it has 98% Catholic...) so Christianity is religion I have most contact with. Besides in the quote you gave I meant not only Christianity but all religions.

 

3. @mimartin

Are all Americans at fault because one American commits a crime? (...) All people are responsible for their own behavior.

I don't blame a group for act of unit. I blame religions for acts of masses in the name of religions (not only Christianity). Also people in big groups tend to lose their identity as individuals and act literally like ants or sheep. Especially when these big groups are indoctrinated (or brainwashed if you like) with strict doctrines where group is the most important.

 

4.

Christian texts don't teach or imply killing or anything to other people. Christ teaches to love your enemy, and when he strikes you to turn the other cheek.

The problem is that there is a lot of contradictions. On one occasion there is plenty about loving your enemy on the other there is a lot about killing those who don't follow strict religious rules. Typical double-thinking. And double-thinking and applying double standards to people is not a good thing to teach children. The thing is you won't hear about it during Sunday mass

 

5. Change of God's heart in The New Testament

God is changing because progress of society requires it. As people got more civilized and less violent they described God as more civilized and less violent. The problem is that instead of using sacred texts as a fictional stories with moral and proof of how society evolved, people still teach children that it is literal truth and words of perfect God.

Also

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

there is no change of heart in the Bible. Only people look the other way.

[JediMaster12]

The problem is that there is a lot of contradictions. On one occasion there is plenty about loving your enemy on the other there is a lot about killing those who don't follow strict religious rules. Typical double-thinking. And double-thinking and applying double standards to people is not a good thing to teach children. The thing is you won't hear about it during Sunday mass

 

Part of the reason that there are so many contradictions is that 1) The Council of Nicea practically excluded about 40 or generations of people and text from the Bible and 2) the writers of the books had an agenda in mind at least with some of the old Testament texts. The earliest known texts are written roughly around the time the Jews were prisoners of Babylon so reading between the lines, the writers were attempting to forge a history that had strenght in a time of crisis which in effect supported a patrilineal geneology and completely disregards females that were culturally important.

 

As to the topic, indocrination, as it means here is not child abuse. If you look at it from a cultural anthropological perspective, it makes sense to the point that like culture, religion is a series of values and beliefs that are shared and learned. If you want to argue that teaching is abuse then what about the skills that are taken for granted every day say like tying your shoe. You had to learn it from someone. Is that abuse? I think we are pulling hairs on this one.

[mimartin]

I don't blame a group for act of unit.[/Quote] Except when you can lump everyone in a easily defined category such as religion.

I blame religions for acts of masses in the name of religions (not only Christianity). [/Quote] Again if I killed in the name of America you don’t blame America, but if I kill in the name of the great spaghetti monster, you blame my religion. That seems perfectly logical if you suspend all logic.

 

Also people in big groups tend to lose their identity as individuals and act literally like ants or sheep.

Exactly what groups are we discussing here? I’ve been a part of a big group most of my life and I have never acted like ants nor sheep. Are you speaking less about mainstream religion and more towards the outer fringe bordering on cults? If so I could agree with you there, otherwise I believe you are using too broad of a brush.

Especially when these big groups are indoctrinated (or brainwashed if you like) with strict doctrines where group is the most important.

Again without knowing what groups you are implying doing this, I have no real way to response. I could agree with you if you are speaking of certain fringe religious groups, but at least in America I have not seen cases of mainstream religious groups doing such in public churches and I have attended many different churches and different denomination both within the Christian community and outside of it. I have seen a mild form of this type of behavior in what I consider a fringe religion.

 

 

***why oh why am I posting in a religious thread***

[Tommycat]

there is no change of heart in the Bible. Only people look the other way.

Actually, the quote was about the 10 commandments.

 

and strangely enough in the same chapter

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

And the previous verse was about turning the other cheek.

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

 

Now who's picking and choosing what to believe? You picked a specific line from the text to support your position without context to show how Christianity didn't change, yet ignored the others that showed how it had.

[JediMaster12]

Now who's picking and choosing what to believe? You picked a specific line from the text to support your position without context to show how Christianity didn't change, yet ignored the others that showed how it had.

 

It's part of debate by supporting the argument with facts. However, even I could say that there are things in the Bible that I don't agree with and many it is the Old Testament and my thoughts on that can be read in a previous post. For me I try to live by the Golden Rule of teating people how I want to be treated. Is that indocrination and abuse from childhood? Methinks not.

[Wookiee Rrudolf]

@mimartin

Again... when you kill someone in the name of America or in the name of Spaghetti Monster you are just one madman. I can't blame whole nation or "Spaghetti Monsterians" for something like this.

BUT try to imagine a hypothetical America with more imperial approach. Children in classrooms are taught about their nation's supremacy over others, people live in xenophobia, always awaiting attack of "jealous foreigners". After years of indoctrination (rising from child to adult in such convictions would be indoctrination, wouldn't it?) national survey shows that over 95% of nation is for the use of nuclear weapon against their imaginary enemies and World War III starts. It's no longer one individual madmen. It's the whole sick system. And this situation is not so hypothetical as I'd like it to be. Things like this happened before religious wars started (but not only religious wars, Nazi Germany had similar system before WWII).

 

The most obvious brainwash tactic would be those preaching shows with hysterical responses from audience, people crying and rolling on the floor with convulsions. I don't know how to describe it better, I just hope you know what I mean. The thing is that mainstream religions may not be as spectacular but are using exactly the same mechanism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PF6O9g6kYE (here's the type of preaching I mean - about 4 min., indoctrinating children is by the way)

(another child indoctrination just to stay on topic)

 

@Tommycat

Some very nice quotes. And here's another. Just after saying about healing the ill and some other nice stuff.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Didn't I say about contradictions? I don't say that there is no do-good in the Bible or Christian philosophy. But just after it there is hate-speech. And you wouldn't teach a child about bits of different religions ("OK, the Christianity got it all wrong in this matter but Hindu has a good way to solve it. And that part that's wrong in Hindu? Come on, Taoism has the answer!"). I can bet that any religious person would teach one and only one religion straight from start to the end.

 

PS.Oh, so he meant The Ten Commandments?

[mimartin]

Is that indocrination and abuse from childhood? Methinks not.

I agree with your point by no means does it meet my definition of child abuse. However, if I am completely honest and look at the definition of indoctrination;

to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions.

Then I believe you can reasonability believe even teaching the golden rule as some form of indoctrination. I’m pretty sure “most parents” goal is not to stifle independent thought, but preparing children to enter society independently, parents will teach children their beliefs and ideology. However, that it is not a form of child abuse. Right or wrong that is a symptom of society.

 

I just fail to see how this is a religious only phenomenon. Couldn’t non-religious parents indoctrinate their children with their own ideology and biases?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PF6O9g6kYE (here's the type of preaching I mean - about 4 min., indoctrinating children is by the way)

(another child indoctrination just to stay on topic)

I do not dispute that some religious people are idiots. I’m just stating that not all that believe in a maker are idiots. I’m a Christian, yet I do not dispute the FACT of evolution. Like I wrote before you are using too broad a brush.

[Tommycat]

@Tommycat

Some very nice quotes. And here's another. Just after saying about healing the ill and some other nice stuff.

 

Didn't I say about contradictions? I don't say that there is no do-good in the Bible or Christian philosophy. But just after it there is hate-speech. And you wouldn't teach a child about bits of different religions ("OK, the Christianity got it all wrong in this matter but Hindu has a good way to solve it. And that part that's wrong in Hindu? Come on, Taoism has the answer!"). I can bet that any religious person would teach one and only one religion straight from start to the end.

 

That's nice... I never said that Christianity didn't have contradictions in it. And that isn't hate. It sounds a lot like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" only an extrapolation of "no worshiping family above God." At least in the full context of the quote. It was specific to teaching others about Him. That those who did turn to Him would face hardship because they would not be following the faiths of their family.

 

And quite frankly, Christianity has already done a lot of borrowing from other cultures and religions. Christmas for example is darn close to the Winter Solstice(where as Christ was more likely born in the fall). Actually the date the Solstice was recognized on at the time Christianity started really getting a foot hold, was December 25th... If you also notice, there are very few fir trees in Bethlehem. Christianity has grown and evolved(if you'll excuse the metaphor) over the years. It has taken parts of other religions, and has so many different flavors, it could literally be the Baskin Robin's of religions.

 

PS.Oh, so he meant The Ten Commandments?

Sorry, I don't click video links. Please explain it.

[JediMaster12]

@ mimartin: You are right in that parents will teach their ideology, what culture in general doesn't? The greatest gift of that is to be taught that you can think on your own and find things out for yourself.

 

@ Tommycat: Yeap Christianity has a nyriad of symbols that are as old as the ancient civilizations. Heck the Israelites that came out of Egypt had heavy influence from that civilization. The Christians at the time of the Apostles were WAY different than they are today.

[Jae Onasi]

*Jae reads Wookiee RRudolf's comments. Jae notices striking similarities to Dawkins' works and other neo-atheism "OMG Religion is EVIL!!!!!!!111!!eleventy-one!!111!!" writers.*

 

*Jae notices WR's notable refusal to give credit to religion for positive things like hospitals, education, feeding and housing poor, supporting homeless shelters*

 

*Jae realizes WR has no interest in doing anything other than promoting his atheist agenda, and refers everyone actually interested in discussing it in any serious way to http://www.rzim.org, who counters this silly indoctrination argument better than anything else she can say.*

[Working Class Hero]

*Jae notices WR's notable refusal to give credit to religion for positive things like hospitals, education, feeding and housing poor, supporting homeless shelters*

If you really want to see indoctrination in action, volunteer at a religious homeless shelter. I did it a few times last year, and it's truly sad to see people be told that their problems are the fault of sins from thousands of years ago.

[Primogen]

Yeah, eff those religions for not leaving their religion at the door of the building they're sheltering you in.

[Jae Onasi]

If you really want to see indoctrination in action, volunteer at a religious homeless shelter. I did it a few times last year, and it's truly sad to see people be told that their problems are the fault of sins from thousands of years ago.

 

Uh, wrong.

 

I've been to two homeless shelters run by churches. Pacific Garden Missions in Chicago (one of the biggest and longest running ones), and the one our church helps run in cooperation with six other churches in the rest of the city during the summer when the number of homeless people is high enough that the city's homeless shelter is over capacity. Our church never tells people their problems are the fault of sins from thousands of years ago. We feed them and house them for the night, listen to them when they tell us their problems, give them practical advice on finding needed services if they want it, and go from there. You know what? A lot of times, the homeless ask US questions about God and Christ, first. Why? Because they're trying to meet their spiritual needs with alcohol and sometimes drugs, and they WANT to meet that need some other way. However, the church recognizes that basic physical needs have to be met first. Religion discussion is useless for someone who hasn't eaten or slept in 24 hours.

 

Pacific Garden missions does have a service between dinner and bed time, but it's optional to attend, and having listened to the services, I can tell you they don't say that kind of stuff, either.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Uh, wrong.

Glenn notices that Jae thinks she can invalidate WCH's personal experience because hers is different

 

I have a post brewing on our other place of disagreement Ms. Jae, and I do not want to be repeatedly singling you out, but your last post denies WCH's experience in place of your own, ?superior? experience.

 

To me, that is just overly presumptuous, a little pompous, and no less biased than any other opinion out there. Your voice holds considerable weight here as you have that 'Super Moderator' label, so I would think you might be a little less heavy-handed saying that you know 'x' is wrong because of YOUR experience 'y'.

 

The answer to the question of the OP, is, uh, sometimes.

[Samuel Dravis]

Qui-Gon, I don't think it's plausible that Jae meant it's impossible for WCH to have had that experience with a shelter. A more charitable interpretation is that she's just pointing out that it is wrong for WCH to generalize about what all shelters do or don't do based on the "few times" he spent volunteering. Which is, I think, the same thing you're advocating about her opinion.

[Totenkopf]

@QGG---I'd tend to agree w/Sam. WCH wrote: "If you really want to see indoctrination in action, volunteer at a religious homeless shelter." He clearly set his example up as being illustrative of religious homeless shelters in general (or was sufficiently vague enough to forgive someone for coming to that conclusion).

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Fair enough, Sam and Totenkopf.

 

I was not claiming that Jae's experience was not valid, just that it was no more or less valid than anyone elses. Her wording was no less presumptuous than WCH's: I should have pointed that out equally in being potentially flawed.

 

In logic speak, "in all universes 'x' there exists a 'y'" for both of their observations. That invalidates neither, and certainly weakens the strength of both.

[Totenkopf]

I'd agree that if either was actually saying that all did "x" or avoided doing "x", that you'd be spot on. Was somewhat under the (probably mistaken) impression that people who went to outfits like tha Salvation Army for assistance probably got hit w/some preaching, many of them accepting it as the "price" of relying on others help meet their basic needs (treating it like a form of background noise while focusing on eating their meal, whatever assistance they were receiving).

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

^^^ Yes. I would agree with your impression, although I would not be speaking from experience. That puts me out of the voice of one who knows anything about the actual situation in such a place and time; I was simply pointing out that nobody KNOWS the real truth in ALL of these situations, as each case is different and therefore needs to be taken and dealt with on a case-by-case investigation.

 

My feathers are rumpled easily by grand assumptions, although I have certainly made a great many of them myself. I thank you for your criticism of my argument and that I have had a chance to clarify it.

 

This is a hot topic, there are strong feelings all the way around on any topic regarding religion. I have debated such things all of my life, and see no end in sight....

 

yet, "the unexplored life is not worth living". Any chance to quote that kooky Socrates....

[Tommycat]

I look at it this way. When I needed to go to my parents for a loan, I had to listen to them blather on about my failings. In the end they did give me the loan, and the price of admission was listening to the rant. Most functions I have attended or helped out in that were put on by the church, were:

The needy show up.

We gave them food.

They usually said, "Thank you, and God bless"

I said, "You're welcome, and come back any time you need"

They left.

 

Now, it may have been that only the faithful thought about going to the church for help, but it seemed to me at least that the ones who came were the ones mentioning god. There was an optional prayer service that people could attend, but it was always off to the side. I'm sure there are some of those places that say that you must attend the service for the free food and clothing. Maybe it's because the functions I attended were from a church that truly did not mind if we did or did not get recognition. All we cared about was feeding those that needed it.

 

Are there any atheist groups that do this in the name of atheism?

[Primogen]

Nobody does anything in the name of Atheism. Atheism isn't a belief system, it's just a belief. That's a bit of a weak argument. There are plenty of secular humanitarian organizations.

[Quist]

Atheism is really a lack of belief. I find it incredibly silly when people categorize atheism as another belief system, equal to Christianity or Islam or Buddhism, etc, because it is completely improper to do so.

 

And yes, Primogen is correct. There are several secular humanitarian charities that do a lot of good around the world without promoting some hokey supernatural agenda along with their goodwill. You can give a starving child some bread and water without polluting their mind with ideas about a supernatural being who will judge them.