Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[serp777]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

 

[Thruve]

yawn.

 

[serp777]

yawn.

Well you're boring. Why even bother to respond at all?

 

[Thruve]

Well, there have been multiple threads on this before, and though I respect your wishes, I think its a petty argument. It pollutes personal progress? Its a form of child abuse? I mean really dude lol

How many here were born into religious families and ended up atheist?

 

[Thana]

I'm going to guess you've never actually dealt with the realities of Child abuse, Otherwise I doubt you'd throw the word around so casually and inaccurately.

And all a law like you suggested would do is force your beliefs down other people's throats, Which is ironic because that's exactly what you think you're trying to stop.

 

[Riverwolf]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain.

Unlike imposing on them the ball and chain of a nationality, gender identity, cultural customs, or the worst of them all, a name.

Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued,

Who are to religion what Kim Jong Un is to democracy.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process

And how do you know that this is a "fundamentally important process"? What research have you done on child developmental psychology, or human psychology in general?

It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves,

No it doesn't, and statements like this are highly insensitive to real child abuse, because it devalues it.

instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

Vernacular that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of history.

 

[jeager106]

Ditto what they all ^^^^ said and frankly they were way too kind.

 

[Ingledsva]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

It is worse when they permanently mark a child's body, showing them to be part of a certain religion.

There is a Christian group that tattoos, or brands, a cross onto the hands of their children, permanently marking them as owned by that religion, even though they are in an area where it will get them abused, and possibly killed. And of course it gives the child no choice.

*

 

[ChristineES]

It's not abuse for parents to raise their child with the religion they practice. Even if the child isn't actively taught the religion of his/her parents, he or she is still going to learn it. I was raised by my mother, who was an atheist in my early childhood. She didn't say to me "There is a God" because she didn't believe it herself. I suppose I wasn't fortunate since my mother didn't dislike religion. I don't think it was abuse for my mother to tell me there was no God. Parents teach their children what they themselves believe in: Whether it's religion, culture, politics, etc.

 

[ChristineES]

It is worse when they permanently mark a child's body, showing them to be part of a certain religion.

There is a Christian group that tattoos, or brands, a cross onto the hands of their children, permanently marking them as owned by that religion, even though they are in an area where it will get them abused, and possibly killed. And of course it gives the child no choice.

*

I don't see a lot of that happening. Which religion are you speaking of? I never saw a cross tattooed on anyone's hand before: A lot of my faith believe that tattoos are wrong and wouldn't dream of having.

 

[oldbadger]

............................................................ It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

This is the part that counts.........
It shows that you are prejudiced about religions.
An extreme-atheist household would not have any books about any religions available for children, and would not allow them to go to various and differing religious meetings.......... Ouch!..... theory busted! ........

 

[Thana]

It is worse when they permanently mark a child's body, showing them to be part of a certain religion.

There is a Christian group that tattoos, or brands, a cross onto the hands of their children, permanently marking them as owned by that religion, even though they are in an area where it will get them abused, and possibly killed. And of course it gives the child no choice.

*

I've never heard of that either.. And besides, It's illegal to mark children like that. What you've described is literally child abuse, And seems pretty far off from the OP.

Not to mention the bible says not to do it.

Leviticus 19:28 - "Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the LORD.

 

[ChristineES]

I've never heard of that either.. And besides, It's illegal to mark children like that. What you've described is literally child abuse, And seems pretty far off from the OP.

I've seen babies having their ears pierced for non-religious purposes.

 

[Thana]

I've seen babies having their ears pierced for non-religious purposes.

I'm not talking about piercings, I'm referring to what she said, Tattoos and brands. They're illegal to do to children and considered abuse, Atleast in my country. Piercings are fine though

 

[Revoltingest]

Right or wrong, parents raising kids in their religion is gonna happen. Unless we adopt a far more oppressive government, it cannot be prevented. So to criticize it as child abuse serves no useful purpose.

 

[oldbadger]

It is worse when they permanently mark a child's body, showing them to be part of a certain religion.

There is a Christian group that tattoos, or brands, a cross onto the hands of their children, permanently marking them as owned by that religion, even though they are in an area where it will get them abused, and possibly killed. And of course it gives the child no choice.*

Hi.....
I think that we need to address more pressing issues before we interfere with the unity of religious families.

A couple of examples.......
1. Introducing alcohol, nicotine and and drugs to infants by proximity or even by use.
2. Introducing firearms to infants by proximity or use.

There are many many other examples, I just hate long posts!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development.

Children develop in many different ways, from platelets to apoptosis. I'm assuming you mean something like cognitive development. However, it takes children many years to be able to reflect upon their conceptions of self and prior to their capacity for doing so they generally require a worldview wherein which much of the structure is provided. And whatever Dawkins and the New Atheists may argue, the fact that parents with particular political ideologies do not necessarily tell or label their children according to their views matters little when they do impart at every election who should be elected and why and communicate in many ways their political worldviews. I recall every year growing up, but especially those years in which there was a presidential election, we children talking about who should be elected and teachers creating mock voting booths. In the end, most simply regurgitated their guardian'(s') view(s) and could not defend their positions (nor should they have been expected to.

Cognition is thoroughly influenced, down to basic reasoning, by culture. To imagine a world in which children can be raised without dogma is to be blind to the dogma that is imposed upon one simply by virtue of the sociocultural contexts, language, SES, and other factors that influence things so seemingly unrelated as the notion of fairness or spatial cognition.

you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance

Yet they frequently self-identify as such. Nor is the identification of one as an American, Canadian, Russian, etc., much different. In fact, for a child to identify herself or himself as Jewish need not entail any religious beliefs. I remember in kindergarten and first grade before I had any knowledge of race that we were all just kids. Then we were informed about Martin Luther King, segregation, and other horrors that Americans have sought to assign to a distant past to readily. Yet once we learned of such distinctions the formed part of our identities, and I recall one day in particular noticing as I went out to the cafeteria that it looked nearly like a chess board: tables of those who were black and those who were white, but little if any tables at which both sat (until I turned 14, I grew up in a town that was almost entirely white, but there was a program set-up to bus black children from Boston into schools in the suburbs).

It would be wonderful if we could hand children Plato, Descartes, Confucius, Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, Aristotle, Plantinga, Thomas Aquinas, Anslem, Freud, etc., and just say "read up". This isn't how it works. Upbringing entails indoctrination.

-there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting

I was raised Catholic and have been agnostic so long I don't remember what it was like to believe, but I think my fathers' showing me Cantor's proof that some infinities are bigger than others when I was about 6 was far more damaging than any experiences in Church. Also, for good or ill, it is simply a fact that Western culture is thoroughly steeped in Christian thought from the creation of the university system and early modern science to basic moral and ethical notions. Being blind to what forms one's worldview is not an advantage.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards.

Societal standards are defined by pressure to conform. Most children care far less about whether they are Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox, or neopgan than whether they like the "right" bands and wear the "right" clothing.

However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress

Human nature does that.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.

instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

And no doubt such open-mindedness as you express would be invaluable to a child's ability to freely determine her or his own worldview.

 

[Ingledsva]

Hi.....
I think that we need to address more pressing issues before we interfere with the unity of religious families.

A couple of examples.......
1. Introducing alcohol, nicotine and and drugs to infants by proximity or even by use.
2. Introducing firearms to infants by proximity or use.

There are many many other examples, I just hate long posts!

Putting a visible and permanent Christian Cross on your child's hand in an area where it can get him killed - is tantamount to child abuse. Personally I would consider the parent an accessory to murder, if the child is killed.

I agree with you on the alcohol, nicotine, and drugs around children.

I'm an Alaskan. I don't agree on the guns. Every home here has multiple rifles, and hand guns. Teach gun safety.


*

 

[Rick O'Shez]

2. Introducing firearms to infants by proximity or use.

Yes, like this: Arizona gun instructor accidentally shot and killed by nine-year-old girl with Uzi | US news | The Guardian

Sheer lunacy handing a child a weapon like this.

 

[Pegg]

I find that calling a child catholic,or muslim, or hindu, etc, is completely unethical and unfair to the child's development. It inhibits personal advancement and thoughtfulness because its a limitation that is imposed on them--a metaphorical ball and chain. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have argued, which I agree with, that you wouldn't call a child a republican, or a democrat, or any other political position because a child isn't old enough to understand the complex issues behind various stance--there is nothing more complicated than the nature of reality, which makes religious labeling even more disgusting.

The reasons why religions like this is obvious--its a form of early prostelization that sticks with a child more easily because their families and communities which they grew up with are peer pressuring them to conform to their societal standards. Children are also more susceptible to suggestions. However, it completely demolishes the chance for most children to have an unpolluted period of personal progress where they can individually learn about what beliefs they find most appealing. Religious families inherently tarnish this fundamentally important process.

In an ideal world I would like there to be laws prohibiting the prostelization until they are capable of making more sophisticated judgments. In conclusion parents are doing a disservice to their children by demanding that they stick to the family household religion . It really is a form of child abuse since it obliterates the potential for a child to learn for themselves, instead of being force fed a bunch of garbage created by iron age peasants.

I understand how you feel, I feel the same about inculcating the idea of atheism into a child

Children look to their parents for their own identity... of course they have the abiltiy to make their own choices as they get older, but while they are young it would be wrong of any parent to exclude them from the family identity and culture. I can't imagine how a child would feel if they were excluded by their own parents...that too would be immoral imo.