Is it Child Abuse to Teach Children Religion?

[Sunstone]

Richard Dawkins and others have stated their belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse. Do you agree or disagree with Dawkins? Why or why not?

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think it is abuse to teach your children your religion. Virtually every parent teaches their children their religion or non-religion.
That means we'd all be abusers.

 

[Magic Man]

I disagree. I plan to teach my kids all about religion. I'm not sure it's the best practice to indoctrinate them with religious dogma before they can really understand what it is, but I still wouldn't consider it child abuse.

It's funny you bring this up as I was just reading about it in the book "The Delusion of Disbelief", about which I just posted another thread.

 

[Bishadi]

Richard Dawkins and others have stated their belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse. Do you agree or disagree with Dawkins? Why or why not?

In a sense, absolutely!

Meaning to raise a child to think that magic is the causation to existence and then they find much in reality a conflict, then see the rebellions as they unfold.

The religions offered truth in wisdom between the associations of people.

Yet to describe life and the nature thereof in a time of 'fire, water, earth and air" shares that knowledge over comes magic and the phenomena left open in theologies.

The to use the beliefs to corrupt the desire of knowledge; is child abuse!

 

[Ringer]

I would rather teach my child about my core values and beliefs and to a certain extent religion. I can't think of anybody turning out to be such a terrible person because they were too Christ-like. Better that way than playing Russian Roulette and having them pick up whatever they are exposed with their friends and society in general.

 

[sandandfoam]

To conceive of children as adults is mistaken. To foist the 'reality' of Dawkins on a child would make at best for a grey and dull childhood.
What type of individual would emerge from a childhood that allowed only 'reality'?

 

[Magic Man]

To conceive of children as adults is mistaken. To foist the 'reality' of Dawkins on a child would make at best for a grey and dull childhood.
What type of individual would emerge from a childhood that allowed only 'reality'?

I think it's a question of keeping things in context. Teaching kids that myths that are not supposed to be taken literally, are literally true, I think is worse than not teaching them myths or stories at all. The best way, though, is to teach them the myths and stories making sure that they know that they are myths and stories, which of course doesn't make them any less educational.

 

[logician]

Richard Dawkins and others have stated their belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse. Do you agree or disagree with Dawkins? Why or why not?

The way most parents teach religion to children is abuse, i.e. my way or the highway, w.o. esposing them to other beliefs, including atheism.

 

[Fluffy]

Actually I think you are mistaken that Richard Dawkins states that this is child abuse.

Dawkins specifically mentions that he thinks that raising a child in a particular religion is fine but describing a child as belonging to a particular religion is child abuse. He claims that this is purely a semantic issue and has nothing to do with parenting.

There is a very good interview on BBC Hardtalk where the interviewer puts this very question to Dawkins and Dawkins makes his position very clear.

What type of individual would emerge from a childhood that allowed only 'reality'?

One area that I do agree with Dawkins on is that reality is pretty amazing and interesting without the need for imagination. As some famous person who I can't remember said "Why do we need there to be fairies at the bottom of the garden before we are prepared to see that the garden itself is beautiful?"

 

[Bishadi]

To conceive of children as adults is mistaken. To foist the 'reality' of Dawkins on a child would make at best for a grey and dull childhood.
What type of individual would emerge from a childhood that allowed only 'reality'?

Dawkins offered wisdom to a pure truth.

Darwin offers knowledge of how it works.

Religions share an opinion biased in faith.

Reality or 'the truth' only works one way.

To offer wisdom is a guide.

To offer how it works, maintains foundation.

TO offer an opinion shares the way it can be viewed.

To teach pure knowledge shares compassion towards the development of truth.

It is a combination of history, religion and natural facts that enable the next generation to evolve towards Peace.

Always remember, once a child finds errors in truth; they rebel agains the deciever!

 

[cardero]

I plan to teach my kids all about religion. I'm not sure it's the best practice to indoctrinate them with religious dogma before they can really understand what it is, but I still wouldn't consider it child abuse.

I plan to raise and encourage each of my children in a different religion. One will be Mormon or Jehovah's Witness (haven't decided yet), one will study Judaism and another will grow up in the Muslim faith. Is this child abuse? I'm not sure but it should bring some interesting exchanges at the supper table.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually I think you are mistaken that Richard Dawkins states that this is child abuse.

Dawkins specifically mentions that he thinks that raising a child in a particular religion is fine but describing a child as belonging to a particular religion is child abuse. He claims that this is purely a semantic issue and has nothing to do with parenting.

There is a very good interview on BBC Hardtalk where the interviewer puts this very question to Dawkins and Dawkins makes his position very clear.


One area that I do agree with Dawkins on is that reality is pretty amazing and interesting without the need for imagination. As some famous person who I can't remember said "Why do we need there to be fairies at the bottom of the garden before we are prepared to see that the garden itself is beautiful?"

Thank you for this. This makes a difference to me. In the book I mentioned the author actually says: "It would be a world where the instruction of children in religious thought, if Dawkins has his way, would be considered 'child abuse'...". I wouldn't be surprised if you are right, as this author, as he clearly shows in other places, has not taken the time to fully understand the "New Atheists" anyway.

 

[sandandfoam]

One area that I do agree with Dawkins on is that reality is pretty amazing and interesting without the need for imagination. As some famous person who I can't remember said "Why do we need there to be fairies at the bottom of the garden before we are prepared to see that the garden itself is beautiful?"

Do you think that children don't need fairies at the bottom of the garden?

 

[sandandfoam]

Always remember, once a child finds errors in truth; they rebel agains the deciever!

Children will rebel regardless, that's part of development.
Children will find errors, that's part of development.
You seem to be saying rebellion is a bad thing? Rebellion is a necessary part of growing up.

 

[Fluffy]

Do you think that children don't need fairies at the bottom of the garden?

I don't think its a question of not needing but a question of relative worth. If you can't see the beauty of a garden because it has no fairies then I think that is bad and I personally wouldn't want to raise my kids with that perception. I think an appreciation of natural beauty is a positive thing to hold because it attaches value to this world and this life. If you attach too much value to the imaginary then you become disillusioned with reality. However, the imaginary is still very important, I just don't think it should be the focus.

Thank you for this. This makes a difference to me. In the book I mentioned the author actually says: "It would be a world where the instruction of children in religious thought, if Dawkins has his way, would be considered 'child abuse'...". I wouldn't be surprised if you are right, as this author, as he clearly shows in other places, has not taken the time to fully understand the "New Atheists" anyway.

No trouble. Just in case you or anyone else is interested, I dug up the interview on youtube. I believe the comments that are relevant to this topic occur in part 3.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

 

[Magic Man]

Do you think that children don't need fairies at the bottom of the garden?

I don't think some of them need them. I think, just as adults, some children can see beauty without faeries, others can't.

 

[sandandfoam]

If you attach too much value to the imaginary then you become disillusioned with reality. However, the imaginary is still very important, I just don't think it should be the focus.

I agree with you, but that opinion is a long way from the belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse.

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't think some of them need them. I think, just as adults, some children can see beauty without faeries, others can't.

I agree with you too - but again this opinion is a long way from the belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse

 

[Magic Man]

I agree with you, but that opinion is a long way from the belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse.

I think you need to qualify the statement "the belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse". As I said, I'm going to teach my kids about religion, but that is different from forcing certain beliefs onto them while they're malleable.

 

[sandandfoam]

I think you need to qualify the statement "the belief that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse". As I said, I'm going to teach my kids about religion, but that is different from forcing certain beliefs onto them while they're malleable.

Say a close relation dies do you tell your 4 year old that they're dead and gone forever or that they're happy with God in heaven?
It's a no-brainer for me.