I worry about the children of religious parents.

[dawny0826]

I can't tell - the exact sort of person you don't keep company with was starred out by the profanity filter.

I commented that I didn't know people who spew hatred. I don't keep company with (insert your expletive of choice). I don't like hanging out with nasty people.

Of course. But are they more or less likely to do it than a mother who was never taught that homosexuality is a sin?

Maybe not.

But, this doesn't mean that a mother's view on homosexuality translates to intolerance, brainwashing and plethora of other negatives in the household.

I wasn't trying to speak to your own case; I was thinking of kids now or in the future.

And why couldn't kids now or in the future relate to a viewpoint comparable to my own if they have similiar experiences growing up?

 

[dawny0826]

Our exchange all started with this:

If you weren't the one talking about honest and allowing room for growth, then I don't know who was.

I think it's bizarre that you keep on retreating to this "it's not child abuse!" position as if any parenting approach that doesn't cross the line into full-out abuse shouldn't be criticized.

I'm not sure that I'm following you at this juncture.

Edit: In one of my exchanges with enaidealukal, he contended that religious influence at a young age is child abuse. He was in agreeance with the OP. You quoted me from the second of my responses to enaidealukal.

I'm retreating to that position because I had been discussing it. Really.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think that if religion was taken away and all else was the same, those same parents would be totally cool with gay people all of a sudden?

A lot of them, yes.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that homosexuality isn't the only issue where a religious upbringing can create problems. In my experience (and I realize that there's variation here), parents taking a "my way or the highway" approach - on any issue - tend to be more often religious than non-religious. I think some of this comes from a general mindset that their moral ideas have been handed down from God and are therefore non-negotiable, some of it comes from religious ideas about the role of parents, especially fathers, as "rulers" of their children.

I think the tendency to create an environment where a parent will make acceptance of their child conditional are much more likely to occur in a religious upbringing than a non-religious one.

I look at the interracial marriage issue, one that was not as strongly driven by religious views - although certainly people on both sides used their religion to inform their beliefs. But mostly they were just racist people who saw blacks as inferior and whites as superior and that this was a boundary that needed to be maintained.

If you removed religious bias, you still would have parents flip out at their kids for being gay - they might not try to pray the gay away, but send their kids to therapy instead (thankfully legit therapy doesn't do that.) Why? Because their kid is weird, disgusting*, "like one of them**", not going to give them grandkids, bringing disrespect to the family, and so on.

Sure, but for the reasons I just touched on, I think those few parents who still disagree with homosexuality would be much more likely to still accept their kids despite them being gay, on average.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure that I'm following you at this juncture.

I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not accusing religious parents of engaging in child abuse. We had a fairly long conversation on that basis.

With your most recent post, it seems you're arguing that if we're not talking about child abuse, then we're off-topic. I think this is a tactic on your part to avoid addressing the negative influence of religion on kids. I think you realize that you've run out of answers and want to end the debate in a way that doesn't make this obvious.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And why on earth would you believe that we religious parents don't teach our children to think for themselves? (If that is what you are insinuating)

Because some forms of religion are absolutely inconsistent with any form of critical or independent thought. One cannot simultaneously teach one's child critical or independent thought, and teach them that, e.g. the articles of Catholicism, are true.

On top of that, I have found that non-religious people are just as judgmental as religious folks- in general.

Yeah, small sample sizes tend to give mistaken impressions like that.

 

[McBell]

Um... Maybe because it isn't in any way relevant? Even if her own parenting was relevant (it doesn't seem to be especially so), the question is parenting methods, not "skills". Maybe her friend is an excellent parent, but has just made one bad parenting decision.

interesting.
What is her basis for comparison?

Lol, riiiiiight.

So you agree with her claim that all children of religious parents have had their lives adversely effected?

Wow. Clever. Of course, her's was an entirely fair question in light of the majority of the responses her OP has received.

If she wants to take your approach and be the hypocrite, that is on her.

 

[dawny0826]

I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not accusing religious parents of engaging in child abuse. We had a fairly long conversation on that basis.

Okay.

With your most recent post, it seems you're arguing that if we're not talking about child abuse, then we're off-topic.

No. I was honestly trying to figure out what the hell we were talking about.

I think this is a tactic on your part to avoid addressing the negative influence of religion on kids.

Unbelievable! You've not presented anything credible enough by way of evidence for me to comment.

I don't discount that there are parents who utilize religion in a negate way. But, I will not make blanket label statements as to how this may impact youth, at large, as you want for me to.

I think you realize that you've run out of answers and want to end the debate in a way that doesn't make this obvious.

No. I don't agree with your blanket label assessments. We agreed to disagree posts ago, didn't we?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. I don't agree with your blanket label assessments. We agreed to disagree posts ago, didn't we?

We did?

And I never gave any "blanket label assessments". I only spoke to general trends, and I acknowledged at all points that there's variation from those trends.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you weren't aware, "raising" a child in a religious household often entails teaching your child and involving them in religious activity from an early age.

Yeah, I was raised in a religious household. However, opening presents on Christmas is "involving them in religious activity", and is hardly objectionable, whereas teaching them that Jesus was the Son of God, was born on Christmas of a virgin, and all the rest, is not only completely unnecessary and pointless, but objectionable to many people to boot, for the reasons already alluded to.

We don't leave our children at home with babysitters on Sundays or exclude them from holidays, family gatherings and other important religious function. We include our children in our own customs.

This is called a "strawman" (you are arguing against a position that nobody here, at least not myself at any rate, are actually advocating). See above.

Most of us answer our children's questions honestly and allow for room for personal growth, contrary to that which the OP projects.

For one, that may mean that "most of us" are not who the OP or those who agree with her have in mind, and for another, regardless of how "honest" we are, I simply see no virtue or benefit in broaching certain subjects with children before a certain age or level of development- religion, sex, politics, etc. Children are not in a position to understand everything an adult can, OBVIOUSLY.

I haven't insinuated that there is anything wrong with doing so.

Really? Then what was that comment about discussing it with others but not your friend while claiming to be concerned about the child being "dishonest"?

So, what? Is this the part where we take our life experiences and opinions and go head to head?

Not necessarily. If you could suggest another word that is even remotely as appropriate as "brainwashing", I'd be content with that.

I have two daughters and they are certainly not brainswashed.

Um... Ok? I have a german shepard, and he likes to play fetch.

Again. Come hang with kids who go to church and/or are being brought up in faith and then let's talk about this brainwashing thing.

Not sure why you assume I haven't. And I'm also not sure why you would think this would contradict anything I've said here.

Until you have "proof" on a large scale as to the impact of religion on children in an abusive context, this is moot conversation.

Yeah, as noted already a couple times, "abuse" is sort of a red herring, as there are levels of harm that fall well short of abuse that are nevertheless worthy of concern. And there is certainly credible evidence that various forms of religious education, which are hardly rare, can and do have negative consequences- and I would argue, no positive ones whatsoever.

At the end of the day, that is my problem with religious education of young children is not that it constitutes abuse, or even that it ALWAYS or NECESSARILY leads to negative effects- but that it can and frequently does have negative consequences, and has no positive ones whatsoever. If there's no gain involved, then ANY amount of pain is not acceptable. Children simply don't need to be taught about gods, souls, devils, ethical laws, religious rituals, or any of that jazz until they are in a position to intellectually (and emotionally) handle that information and make some sense of it.

But, how can you apply this to tangible statistics to demonstrate how, religion is impacting children in "abusive" terms. This is what the OP contends.

Again, and I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that the "abuse" language was hyperbole, and thus a red herring (and likely an unfortunate word choice as a result).

Your opinions are fine and dandy but our objections to religion mean nothing when you're accusing parents of abuse. Where's the proof. Convictions require proof.

Nobody is suggesting taking legal recourse.

What more do you want? This isn't the first time that you've pointed out how poorly I've debated, yet, you haven't presented anything that's blowing my mind to support the OP, other than telling me that I'm wrong and the OP is right. Okay. Fine.

And that's pretty much been my purpose here; not to argue that the OP is correct (although for the most part I do happen to agree), but rather that it is not arrogant, dishonest, or factually incorrect, as many posters have alleged. It's just annoying when you see people apparently intentionally ignoring the point of a genuinely felt (if not, perhaps, optimally articulated) post simply because they had a negative emotional reaction to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Edit: In one of my exchanges with enaidealukal, he contended that religious influence at a young age is child abuse. He was in agreeance with the OP. You quoted me from the second of my responses to enaidealukal.

I'm retreating to that position because I had been discussing it. Really.

And you and I had been discussing something else. Really.

 

[dawny0826]

We did?

And I never gave any "blanket label assessments". I only spoke to general trends, and I acknowledged at all points that there's variation from those trends.

When you told me that you rejected my opinion and I told you that I disagreed with you, I assumed that there was mutual understanding that we weren't going to come to any sort of agreement.

You haven't had evidence to support all of your claims. It's been challenging to answer all of your questions.

You've expected response that I can't, in good faith, give.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

In one of my exchanges with enaidealukal, he contended that religious influence at a young age is child abuse.

Um... What?

Actually, I feel like I've been extremely clear on this particular point.

 

[dawny0826]

Um... What?

Actually, I feel like I've been extremely clear on this particular point.

If I've misunderstood or misrepresented you, by all means, correct me.

 

[dawny0826]

Um... What?

Actually, I feel like I've been extremely clear on this particular point.

For the record, you said this, during our conversation, which is why I drew the conclusion that I did:

Reeeeally? I would suggest that teaching your child the doctrines of a particular religion, prior to a certain age, necessarily constitutes brainwashing. What else would you call it, given that the most trusted and authoritative figure in the child's world is teaching them, as fact, something concerning which they are not intellectually capable of assessing or even fully understanding?

If you do not equate brainwashing to child abuse, I apologize.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

If you do not equate brainwashing to child abuse, I apologize.

I don't.

 

[Assad91]

"I worry about children of religious parents"

You worry too much

 

[Revoltingest]

'"Brainwashing" seems to be a histrionic term because of its connotations of dishonest intent, coercion, & changing pre-existing beliefs.
Since all parents install beliefs & values in their kids, the more benign term "inculcation" makes more sense. Worrying about it is useless.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"I worry about children of religious parents"

You worry too much

Nah. Concerns well-founded. See: the entire history of religion.

 

[Assad91]

Nah. Concerns well-founded. See: the entire history of religion.

As if atheism w will turn everyone away from evils.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

As if atheism w will turn everyone away from evils.

From all? Nah, of course not. But the particular variety of evils that religion introduces? It clearly minimizes those. Not many people killing anybody, or trying to restrict their civil rights, in the name of God in atheism.