Is it Child Abuse to Teach Children Religion?

[+Xausted]

http://help.channel4.com/SRVS/CGI-B...C-510E-44A5-A481-01EB1DDA1669**,T=CONTACT_VoD
This is a link for any one that does not have "4 on demand". The programme I am refaring to on here is called "Jesus Camp". It concerned me greatly. I believe it is very in line with this thread even though it is only on evangelicalism in America. It is just over 40 minutes long, but worth a watch. Please dont think I am having a go at any of the Christians here with this.

 

[Bishadi]

Children will rebel regardless, that's part of development.

No it is not as for any to suggest Manson was just rebelling is a fool.

Children will find errors, that's part of development.

Finding errors in knowledge is because of complacency with ignorance.

You seem to be saying rebellion is a bad thing?

Did not say to find truths and rebel against ignorance is bad? As when the people most trusted cannot give an answer true and correct and able to stand the test of time; they lose the trust. Such to say, I want your harley and take it from you………

Rebellion is a necessary part of growing up

I just rebelled against your integrity, got a problem with it?

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?

You lied to them! There is no heaven better than the place your in as it is the last time you will ever have the choice to do anything ever again.

It's a no-brainer for me.

That’s what I say; the truth is a no brainer. Represent the truth or simply shut up. As any who suggests; well its normal to rebel based on finding knowledge incorrect is a complacent fool.

But can't I teach my kids that that relative is in a happy place without telling them anything about "God"? Can't I comfort them in any other way? Do you see that as the same thing as telling them about Santa Claus, that one day they'll find out that it's not the truth, but for now, it's good for them to believe?

Now a real observation!

Maybe share that when ever they think about that member, they live longer in that Love you feel for them. (If family) share that when they look in the mirror they live in you (a physical fact).

And if they cry, suggest they channel that Love in doing something in memory for them. For example; take that little one to a nursery, buy a tree and share that because (soso) gave such Love we are going to plant a life in representation of that love, that even as they left us now, each time you see that tree continuing in life, supporting the bird and the critters, that because of their life, you gave of your material energy for their memory and life ‘to continue’…

Write a book, write a song, teach a child something you learned from them…. Help another person, do something is quality contributions simply because you loved that person……………

And then that lost loved one lives in that contribution!

Death is as simple to each consciousness as going to sleep; the place where the body does not experience choice. The only difference is when you go to sleep you feel confident you have another chance to ‘do’………. But in a literal sense, it’s about the same!


Now sit back and think, all your life most never know the truth of the matter but now you do.

Imagine all the heart ache saved if someone just told you the truth a long time ago!

 

[Draka]

Boy you seem bitter.

 

[Jaymes]

your right you can tell a kid there is a god ,
then tell him he can only eat certain things because god said so ,

Hey, what do you have against Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists?

 

[Alceste]

Like Dallas and Somkid (and apparently Dawkins), I think it depends which doctrine is being taught. Certain things would be abusive whether or not they were religious doctrines. For example, the threat of extreme punishment for "wrong" thoughts, words or behavior combined with a complete lack of privacy is very psychologically damaging and qualifies as abuse. I can't see the difference between a domineering parent setting up a spy cam in the child's room and reading her diary on the sly, then doling out punishment for the private thoughts discovered, or the same parent saying that GOD is watching all the time and reading the child's mind and will dole out punishment.

Actually, if anything, the religious version is much worse, since children whose privacy and freedom of thought is violated by abusive earthly parents can at least learn to outwit them to get some relief. Telling them an abusive GOD is keeping an eye on them would take away even this small refuge.

 

[Alceste]

But can't I teach my kids that that relative is in a happy place without telling them anything about "God"? Can't I comfort them in any other way? Do you see that as the same thing as telling them about Santa Claus, that one day they'll find out that it's not the truth, but for now, it's good for them to believe?

I find the most diplomatic way to get around the metaphysical questions of children is to go with the "some people believe..." angle and present them with a variety of beliefs. Then if they say "but which one is it REALLY?" I tell them I don't know and nobody else does either. Which is true. (Also I wouldn't want to encourage Cartesian dualism in the very young.) I don't think grieving kids want certainty as much as they want comfort, which is better expressed by gentleness, physical touch and listening to them than it is by telling them pretty lies.

 

[Magic Man]

I find the most diplomatic way to get around the metaphysical questions of children is to go with the "some people believe..." angle and present them with a variety of beliefs. Then if they say "but which one is it REALLY?" I tell them I don't know and nobody else does either. Which is true. (Also I wouldn't want to encourage Cartesian dualism in the very young.) I don't think grieving kids want certainty as much as they want comfort, which is better expressed by gentleness, physical touch and listening to them than it is by telling them pretty lies.

That is one way of doing it. I don't see that as being much different from telling them none of it. Children tend to look to their parents for answers. If the parent gives an answer but says that they don't believe it or an equivalent, then the child will most likely not find it useful at all, llike saying "well, some people believe this, but I don't" tells them that it's not true or real. That's the way I see it at least.

And I'm not saying it's a bad approach, probably a very good one, but not much different from just not telling them the possible comforting lie to begin with.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

That is one way of doing it. I don't see that as being much different from telling them none of it. Children tend to look to their parents for answers. If the parent gives an answer but says that they don't believe it or an equivalent, then the child will most likely not find it useful at all, llike saying "well, some people believe this, but I don't" tells them that it's not true or real. That's the way I see it at least.

And I'm not saying it's a bad approach, probably a very good one, but not much different from just not telling them the possible comforting lie to begin with.

I think the only point I could see to it is that it introduces a level of respectfulness towards other peoples beliefs, or rather just a lack of ignorance towards it. Understanding other peoples' religious (and other) beliefs is a good way to ensure a better ability to form socially coherent communities.

 

[Magic Man]

I think the only point I could see to it is that it introduces a level of respectfulness towards other peoples beliefs, or rather just a lack of ignorance towards it. Understanding other peoples' religious (and other) beliefs is a good way to ensure a better ability to form socially coherent communities.

I completely agree, and that would go into teaching my kids about religion, as I would do.

I'm just stating that , in regards to stephen's argument that telling children there's a heaven and God to comfort them is a good and necessary thing, this way of doing it isn't any better than not telling the kid anything about it to comfort them.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I completely agree, and that would go into teaching my kids about religion, as I would do.

I'm just stating that , in regards to stephen's argument that telling children there's a heaven and God to comfort them is a good and necessary thing, this way of doing it isn't any better than not telling the kid anything about it to comfort them.

Ah. I need to learn to look back a few more posts XD

I think that some level of comfort is necessary for a child. I certainly think some children (and indeed adults) find it hard to handle the concept of someone close to them being gone forever. I don't even think that young children even 'get' death. In that way, I think the concept of a heaven is a useful tool to put their mind at ease and get some form of closure on what can be a very complex thing emotionally.

 

[Magic Man]

Ah. I need to learn to look back a few more posts XD

I think that some level of comfort is necessary for a child. I certainly think some children (and indeed adults) find it hard to handle the concept of someone close to them being gone forever. I don't even think that young children even 'get' death. In that way, I think the concept of a heaven is a useful tool to put their mind at ease and get some form of closure on what can be a very complex thing emotionally.

No problem. I think that children, as well as everyone else, need some comforting. I'm just disagreeing on the type of comfort. Also, the previous argument about telling kids that heaven is something some people believe in but not telling them you believe in it still leaves them thinking its not real, and doesn't really help comfort them, in my opinion.

 

[Alceste]

That is one way of doing it. I don't see that as being much different from telling them none of it. Children tend to look to their parents for answers. If the parent gives an answer but says that they don't believe it or an equivalent, then the child will most likely not find it useful at all, llike saying "well, some people believe this, but I don't" tells them that it's not true or real. That's the way I see it at least.

And I'm not saying it's a bad approach, probably a very good one, but not much different from just not telling them the possible comforting lie to begin with.

It is much different, though, IMO, in the context I mentioned it. If a child is asking a metaphysical question, saying nothing will be more frustrating than just saying "I don't know" with sincerity, then openly discussing what others believe without judgement. Like someone has already pointed out, they're going to hear it somewhere anyway. My refusing to answer an honest question and then somebody else saying "Oh your granny's up in heaven watching over you now" would put unnecessary stress on my relationship with the child. Better to let them know some people might think she's gone to heaven, others think she's gone back to the place we were before we were born (nothingness) and still others think she will be reborn into another body. And that nobody knows the answer - it's a mystery. That prepares them to absorb whatever people might tell them in a larger context without dualistic confusion (ie "true vs. false") and also frees them to think about what they believe, and to imagine their own alternative if the spirit moves them.

Not communicating wouldn't be my first choice when a child is craving some kind of answer.

 

[Magic Man]

It is much different, though, IMO, in the context I mentioned it. If a child is asking a metaphysical question, saying nothing will be more frustrating than just saying "I don't know" with sincerity, then openly discussing what others believe without judgement. Like someone has already pointed out, they're going to hear it somewhere anyway. My refusing to answer an honest question and then somebody else saying "Oh your granny's up in heaven watching over you now" would put unnecessary stress on my relationship with the child. Better to let them know some people might think she's gone to heaven, others think she's gone back to the place we were before we were born (nothingness) and still others think she will be reborn into another body. And that nobody knows the answer - it's a mystery. That prepares them to absorb whatever people might tell them in a larger context without dualistic confusion (ie "true vs. false") and also frees them to think about what they believe, and to imagine their own alternative if the spirit moves them.

Not communicating wouldn't be my first choice when a child is craving some kind of answer.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your way of doing things. I'm just saying that it's not really a response to stephen's idea that we should teach kids at that point that there is a heaven and God, not just tell them that some people believe that to be true.

 

[Alceste]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your way of doing things. I'm just saying that it's not really a response to stephen's idea that we should teach kids at that point that there is a heaven and God, not just tell them that some people believe that to be true.

Ah see what you're saying. Well, BS-ing kids is not an option for me - I'm pathologically honest. So, maybe Stephen's way works for him (I can see how that would be possible if you actually believe it yourself), but it wouldn't work for me.

I'm pretty confident it doesn't matter to the kids whether they get an "absolute" right answer. In fact, I think most of the time they're better off without one. Presenting many possible answers but no definitive "truth" encourages critical thinking, whereas providing only ONE answer you present as being "true" encourages parroting.

So I guess it just depends what kind of kids you want to end up with.

 

[logician]

I would say most parents do not give their children a well-rounded view of religious/atheistic viewpoints, it's usually their own church and their own way of thinking, period. In my opinion, this is sad, and abusive of the child's mind.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I would say most parents do not give their children a well-rounded view of religious/atheistic viewpoints, it's usually their own church and their own way of thinking, period. In my opinion, this is sad, and abusive of the child's mind.

I just do not see it that way. A lot of cultural concepts and ideas pass down the generations, but we do not call it abusive.

 

[logician]

I just do not see it that way. A lot of cultural concepts and ideas pass down the generations, but we do not call it abusive.

I was a product of such abuse, to call it just a passing of cultural concpets is dishonest and misleading.

 

[Random]

Neural-linguistic programming, better consumers. Fascist wet dream, no religion bull about being special children of God with freewill and all. Produce-consume and spend your money on stuff you don't need! Useless eaters...

 

[Alceste]

I just do not see it that way. A lot of cultural concepts and ideas pass down the generations, but we do not call it abusive.

I think the "abuse" line is crossed when we try to convince our children there will be some kind of divine retribution if they deviate from the concepts and ideas we pass down to them.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I think the "abuse" line is crossed when we try to convince our children there will be some kind of divine retribution if they deviate from the concepts and ideas we pass down to them.

I'm just saying that parental expectations of conformity to their expectations extend way beyond religion. It's a natural thing for parents to do.

My parents made it very clear that if I didn't go to school, they would make my life very miserable. Is that abusive? No, it is a genuine desire to see their child become successful and happy.

The exact same applies to religion. If I didn't go to church, they would make my life miserable. They had a genuine desire that I be educated in their religion, and gain the maturity that it has given me that I can see, and people observe in me in comparison to those of a similar age. I appreciate it greatly and it has been very positive. I'm not saying religion is the only way to that, but it hasn't hindered me in any way.

My parents now, however, recognise that I am old enough (18) to make my own decisions with regards to what I do with my life. They would be respectful to my wishes as long as I remain respectful to theirs.

The unwillingness to let the child make up his or her own mind is the only 'abusive' factor as I see it, and then the connotation of child abuse is far too drastic to apply to it in the vast majority of circumstances. In the UK especially.