Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[LegionOnomaMoi]

They should be given the option to participate after being exposed to other religions as well as athiesm, assuming they are mature enough to start understanding basic concepts.

Which again touches upon the point I broached: what do you know of developmental cognition, as so much of your argument depends upon children being something other than they are?

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

1. the Jewish circumcision in most religious traditions that integer
But male circumcision only-
Circumcision does not harm the child
Because in the future be good
Christianity is give freedom you
Circumcisionyou arefree
Islam considers it important also as Judaism
But with different meaning
Circumcision ofChristwasinthe seventh day ofbirth
Asitknown
2. it is not true that the gods in religious community gives physicians and other
Any societywhere thetwoconcepts
Spiritual-
It also includes

And living concepts
(Physicalconcepts)
Europe has the world's best scientists and thinkers
Because the prevailing concepts based on concepts in most Christian and moral assets
And part of Europe today forgot this spiritual side
And Christianity
It says that in every human beinga certaintalent
Of understanding Christianity
Copy the talent of every one
Evenc rime be talent

The issue of sexual abuse in children
It isa bugofsome pastors
That could happenin a society
Reverend man
Can ykhtaa
We khtao'hismovingtofollow infaith
Why choose Church priests duty better
Could be theold methods in the appointment of bishops was not commensuratewiththe present age
The Church handle errors
Because of the origins and teachings of Christianity

 

[Riverwolf]

Most of these are irrelevant facts. So i guess its okay to label a child a republican or a homosexual or any other very personal decision that requires a significant amount of thought to develop a position since by your logic every imposition has the same weight. You've made a fallacy here because one imposed thing isn't equivalent to another just because they're imposed.

That would be the false analogy fallacy, and honestly, hindsight tells me that only nationality is, indeed, a false analogy. The other two things I listed, cultural customs and gender identity, are very much equivalent if you take the time to delve into these issues.

I never said anything about a political party, or sexual orientation (which is not a decision). I'm quite aware that not all external influences are equal, hence the ones I picked.

In an ideal world I would also like children to be able to avoid the influences of culture at a young age and find a culture that, after thoughtful analysis as an adult, aligns with them the best.

The world you're describing is not one that's possible, nor would I call it any kind of ideal. Such a world would severely hinder social and identity development, with more severe cases potentially developing sociopathic tendencies.

Allegations without any evidence or reasoning and an ad hominem. Most of the world believes in Christianity, Islam, and Judiasm which were founded during ancient eras by lower class individuals.

In fact the reasoning is based on the evidence of the posts themselves, as well as the citing of Dawkins and Hitchens as sources.

For one thing, Judaism is a minority religion, and is also a Tribal religion(like Shinto, Vodun, or Peyote); it has no "founder", but developed gradually from Canaanite polytheism. The three major religions are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Furthermore, the status of being lower class is not in any way an indication that these people were unintelligent. After all, Shakespeare was lower middle class, as well.

In the Near East, where Christianity and Islam came from, the Iron Age ended about 500 BCE, well before either religion came forth. Buddhism did appear during India's Iron Age (which lasted until about 200 BCE), but was also founded by an ex-Prince.

So children being able to form their own identity without overt influences isn't an important process?

It's not possible. Humans are a tribe-social species. Overt influences are not only unavoidable, they're essential. They form the basis for our identities, even if we don't fully realize it.

Are you for real? Perhaps the indoctrination of children in North Korea is acceptable in your opinion because personal development isn't a fundamentally important process.

Straw Man. And false analogy. In other words, no.

Furthermore its an ethical issue--people should have the ability to make their own decisions and come to their own beliefs without manipulation, peer pressure, subliminal messaging, propaganda, or other significant influence. At a young age children are most vulnerable to these powers of suggestion.

And many adults are just as susceptible to suggestive powers. The most dangerous such power is the Straw Man, and boy is he trying to make me think stuff about you and your arguments that I have no reason to believe. (Feel free to point any out; his power is such that even when I know he's there, he can still work his magic. ... and don't take that talk literally; I think in animistic/archetypal conceptions).

The human brain is about 90% developed around the age of 5, and won't reach full development until about the age of 25. Being susceptible to suggestion is based on several factors, not the least of which being a lack of experience and a variety knowledge, which can only come from external sources.

For one thing, far as I'm concerned, the books on religion by Dawkins and others like him are propaganda. We're all influenced by subliminal messaging, both real and imagined, just from living in a highly commercialized society. Peer pressure is not inherently a bad thing; it's only a problem when the pressure is to do something harmful.

Child abuse covers a wide spectrum and isn't limited to simply the worst cases of physical child abuse; you aren't the master authority on its definition. Its child abuse because it limits many children from developing their own religious identity. Furthermore many children in the United States, for instance, are brought up to believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago and that evolution is a fraud, which means that the religious beliefs cause accurate information to be withheld from children, thus directly hurting their education.

You're not the master authority on its definition, either. I never claimed to be, nor did I say anything about child abuse only being about the physical. Straw Man.

You know what else is a huge hindrance to good child development? The standard school system. It doesn't allow anywhere near enough playtime (essential for growth) and subtly discourages socialization except in very controlled environments. In addition, many outright falsehoods are taught (such as the myth that Columbus argued a round Earth to an academia that thought the Earth is flat).

But I don't call that abuse, because it's not. (Not usually, anyway). Abuse leaves scars, hindering development in such a way that simply living in the world is a much greater challenge than someone who isn't abused. I know; a dear friend of mine is a victim of psychological abuse.

Furthermore, the proper age of the Earth and the fact of evolution were made quite clear to me when I was a child... and I believed them quite, quite blindly. I didn't understand how they worked, I didn't understand how the scientific method works, I wasn't made aware of how to think. Just what to think. It's lucky that it was the scientific consensus that I was being exposed to, rather than a literalistic interpretation of Lore. But I didn't understand any of it until well after I'd graduated high school.

I do know what it is that you're trying to denounce: the no-question indoctrination of children into fear/guilt/hate-based variants on religions, such as those which deny life-saving medical procedures for arbitrary reasons, or threats of hellfire for misbehavior. That is a very, very real problem, and I'm just as opposed to it as you. But I don't lump all forms of raising children in a religion together with the harmful practices. It's only harmful when it's inflexible and based on manipulation using negative emotions.

 

[Pegg]

Well I think we're in agreement because I am not advocating for parents to only support athiesm. I think parents should provide an avenue to explore athiesm as well as other philosophies and religious beliefs to come to their own conclusions.

parents will teach their children their own beliefs, thats just a fact of life that will never change. We teach our kids own beliefs because those beliefs shape us... im not saying all beliefs are good or right, its just the way we are. However i agree with your sentiment that as kids grow up, they should be able to explore other beliefs .... but i think it should be after the kids have grown up. How could i as a christian parent teach my kids about being a buddhist or muslim or any other religion but my own? I simply could not do it because its not part of my psyche.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The argument im making is that it shouldn't be shoved down their throat because that's what their family believes in.

But parents shove all sorts of stuff down their childrens' throat, some of it good and some of it bad. You might disapprove of some of it but there's nothing you can do about it - short of some sort of Big Brother police state.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Yes and I find this to be a form of child abuse, albeit a light one. Children should not be forced to participate in choirs or go to the special wing for children, where they are no doubt told stories meant to prostelatize them and prepare them for the real sunday sermon. They should be given the option to participate after being exposed to other religions as well as athiesm, assuming they are mature enough to start understanding basic concepts.

The Churchhas a duty toteachtheirfaith
And faith start from childhood
I am a Christian
And when I feel that my children are learning in contravention of Church education love samnahm go to church
Christian educationis notagainst humanity
When there is a global treaty committed all modernizations will have the power of implementation
We live in a world where ideas and teachings
If you prohibitreligious education inyour countryother countriesdoes notprevent
They learn the teachings of hate
Isupposeyou
InFranceblockedteach childrenreligion
DoesTurkeyfollow the samemethod
For this you will be in danger
You put your morals and your date in the wind
Rather thanlooking at theprevention ofreligious education
I invite youto spread theteachings ofChristian love
Among theMuslim childrenin your own
I invite youtoconsultthe teachings of Christianity
And you'll know it's the most beautiful
And to teach kids not any harm to morals

 

[Rick O'Shez]

InFranceblockedteach childrenreligion

I quite like the idea of religion being taken out of education. In the UK we have a lot of state-funded faith schools and concerns have been raised about some of them.

 

[Riverwolf]

I quite like the idea of religion being taken out of education. In the UK we have a lot of state-funded faith schools and concerns have been raised about some of them.

Maybe it's because I was raised in the US, but "concern" is quite the understatement to my hearing of such a thing. I'm a HUGE believer in separation of church and state, so find the idea of state-funded faith school to be abhorrent.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Maybe it's because I was raised in the US, but "concern" is quite the understatement to my hearing of such a thing. I'm a HUGE believer in separation of church and state, so find the idea of state-funded faith school to be abhorrent.

Here's what's been happening in the UK:
Officials warned about Muslims 'trying to take over Birmingham school' in 2008 | Daily Mail Online

 

[Riverwolf]

Here's what's been happening in the UK:
Officials warned about Muslims 'trying to take over Birmingham school' in 2008 | Daily Mail Online

I'm afraid I don't really trust mainstream news sources, even less non-mainstream ones, with only a few exceptions.

In this case, I honestly can't really tell if this is referring to a real threat that's being thwarted, or an imagined threat that's punishing innocents.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I quite like the idea of religion being taken out of education..

I do not, and I actually find it rather abhorrent. But my statement seems far more critical and extreme than I intend it. Our history has been significantly influenced by religious notions (for good or ill; I would tend to say ill). It has dominated much of what we have done and who we have been and what we are. Sweeping it under the rug is not a solution IMO. Although I have to admit I don't know the best way to teach the subject. For almost a century pagan religion has been mutilated beyond recognition in an attempt to make it conform to the Christian concept of "religion." The "Comparative Religion" approach was doomed from the start. How can one communicate such vital components of human history objectively?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm afraid I don't really trust mainstream news sources, even less non-mainstream ones, with only a few exceptions.

This is an ongoing situation which has been widely reported in the UK and subject to official investigations which found substance to the allegations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The "Comparative Religion" approach was doomed from the start. How can one communicate such vital components of human history objectively?

In the UK most teachers of comparative religion are still Christians, which probably confirms your scepticism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In the UK most teachers of comparative religion are still Christians, which probably confirms your scepticism.

Not really, for it is an older group of Christian scholars responsible:

The comparative religion in its most common incarnation is a combination of inventing religions that never existed:

“The whole comparative approach to religion was directly related to confessional disputes within Christianity. As we shall discover, these confessional conflicts were the single most important factor in the development of comparative religion. ... Accordingly, the ‘religions’ of the ‘Orient’, of the Pacific and the Americas, of ancient Greece and Rome were pressed into the service of the religious interests of the West. They became heresies which were formally equivalent to some undesirable version of Christianity, be it papism, Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other of the myriads of Protestant sects.”

Harrison, P. (21990002). 'Religion' and the Religions in the English Enlightenment. Cambridge University Press.

 

[serp777]

That would be the false analogy fallacy, and honestly, hindsight tells me that only nationality is, indeed, a false analogy. The other two things I listed, cultural customs and gender identity, are very much equivalent if you take the time to delve into these issues.

I never said anything about a political party, or sexual orientation (which is not a decision). I'm quite aware that not all external influences are equal, hence the ones I picked.



The world you're describing is not one that's possible, nor would I call it any kind of ideal. Such a world would severely hinder social and identity development, with more severe cases potentially developing sociopathic tendencies.



In fact the reasoning is based on the evidence of the posts themselves, as well as the citing of Dawkins and Hitchens as sources.

For one thing, Judaism is a minority religion, and is also a Tribal religion(like Shinto, Vodun, or Peyote); it has no "founder", but developed gradually from Canaanite polytheism. The three major religions are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Furthermore, the status of being lower class is not in any way an indication that these people were unintelligent. After all, Shakespeare was lower middle class, as well.

In the Near East, where Christianity and Islam came from, the Iron Age ended about 500 BCE, well before either religion came forth. Buddhism did appear during India's Iron Age (which lasted until about 200 BCE), but was also founded by an ex-Prince.



It's not possible. Humans are a tribe-social species. Overt influences are not only unavoidable, they're essential. They form the basis for our identities, even if we don't fully realize it.



Straw Man. And false analogy. In other words, no.



And many adults are just as susceptible to suggestive powers. The most dangerous such power is the Straw Man, and boy is he trying to make me think stuff about you and your arguments that I have no reason to believe. (Feel free to point any out; his power is such that even when I know he's there, he can still work his magic. ... and don't take that talk literally; I think in animistic/archetypal conceptions).

The human brain is about 90% developed around the age of 5, and won't reach full development until about the age of 25. Being susceptible to suggestion is based on several factors, not the least of which being a lack of experience and a variety knowledge, which can only come from external sources.

For one thing, far as I'm concerned, the books on religion by Dawkins and others like him are propaganda. We're all influenced by subliminal messaging, both real and imagined, just from living in a highly commercialized society. Peer pressure is not inherently a bad thing; it's only a problem when the pressure is to do something harmful.



You're not the master authority on its definition, either. I never claimed to be, nor did I say anything about child abuse only being about the physical. Straw Man.

You know what else is a huge hindrance to good child development? The standard school system. It doesn't allow anywhere near enough playtime (essential for growth) and subtly discourages socialization except in very controlled environments. In addition, many outright falsehoods are taught (such as the myth that Columbus argued a round Earth to an academia that thought the Earth is flat).

But I don't call that abuse, because it's not. (Not usually, anyway). Abuse leaves scars, hindering development in such a way that simply living in the world is a much greater challenge than someone who isn't abused. I know; a dear friend of mine is a victim of psychological abuse.

Furthermore, the proper age of the Earth and the fact of evolution were made quite clear to me when I was a child... and I believed them quite, quite blindly. I didn't understand how they worked, I didn't understand how the scientific method works, I wasn't made aware of how to think. Just what to think. It's lucky that it was the scientific consensus that I was being exposed to, rather than a literalistic interpretation of Lore. But I didn't understand any of it until well after I'd graduated high school.

I do know what it is that you're trying to denounce: the no-question indoctrination of children into fear/guilt/hate-based variants on religions, such as those which deny life-saving medical procedures for arbitrary reasons, or threats of hellfire for misbehavior. That is a very, very real problem, and I'm just as opposed to it as you. But I don't lump all forms of raising children in a religion together with the harmful practices. It's only harmful when it's inflexible and based on manipulation using negative emotions.

"That would be the false analogy fallacy, and honestly, hindsight tells me that only nationality is, indeed, a false analogy. The other two things I listed, cultural customs and gender identity, are very much equivalent if you take the time to delve into these issues.

I never said anything about a political party, or sexual orientation (which is not a decision). I'm quite aware that not all external influences are equal, hence the ones I picked."

Cultural customs and gender identity(gender identity is really redundant and simply apart of culture) are not accurate analogies because the parents have little control over these aspects of a child's life--media and television/school will mostly influence the majority of culture. Religion on the other is controlled to a much greater extent by the family because children are often required to attend church and follow various religious rituals /holidays. I also never said you said anything about political parties or sexual orientation; I used it as an example to show that the labeling of many aspects of complicated decision making would be considered inappropriate and I was likewise using that to justify that religious labeling is also inappropriate. Also homsexuality is often not a choice but some bisexual individuals will often make a choice for one particular gender or the other--it was just an example of a personal, complicated decision that is comparable to religious choice since it requires a deep analysis. It also wasn't apparent that you thought all external influences weren't equal since you suggested "name" which is a relatively insignificant influence.

The world you're describing is not one that's possible, nor would I call it any kind of ideal. Such a world would severelyhinder social and identity development, with more severe cases potentially developing sociopathic tendencies.

Well i'm not talking about a possible world. It wouldn't be possible to force parents to not teach their children their religious beliefs. The world is hypothetical, or theoretical, whatever you wanted to call it, but this is a strawman since I never expected it to be possible. I don't agree that it would hinder identity development--how could letting people arrive at their own conclusions with as little propoganda/indoctrination as possible possibly hinder it? And its a mighty big leap to suggest socipathic tendancies. How did you make that quantum leap?

In fact the reasoning is based on the evidence of the posts themselves, as well as the citing of Dawkins and Hitchens as sources.

This is a media fallacy. I merely referenced an argument that Dawkins and Hitchens used, not to mention that you certainly haven't shown how either of these sources are deficient, nor have you demonstrated why referencing their arguments would affect the rest . In regard to your claims about the iron age, it ended at different times throughout the world. In many places it lasted as long as 700 AD. And since were getting nit picky about unimportant details, Hinduism is actually the third largest religion which has 2 and a half more members than buddhism. This tangent you've led us on is really a red herring though since it has no connection to the main argument really and is simply a distration.

So children being able to form their own identity without overt influences isn't an important process?
"It's not possible. Humans are a tribe-social species. Overt influences are not only unavoidable, they're essential. They form the basis for our identities, even if we don't fully realize it."

The point of bringing up North korea afterwards, even though it didn't necessarily reflect your position, was to show you that you don't think an extreme influence and propaganda is acceptable. So obviously you're drawing the line, and i'm arguing it goes after religion.I used that example to get you to admit and agree, which I thought you would, that the absolute propaganda and control of North Korea isn't justified. On the one hand you're saying that there are essential overt influences, but on the other hand you wouldn't agree with the specific overt influences used in North korea. There are many elements of propaganda in North Korea that resemble indoctrinating children to follow the families' religion--like spreading the propaganda that Kim Jung Un is the supreme deity. This propaganda starts at a young age. I also used the word perhaps which means it can't be a strawman since I wasn't declaring what your position had to be, just that it might be your position. You should use the term strawman more sparingly.

"For one thing, far as I'm concerned, the books on religion by Dawkins and others like him are propaganda. We're all influenced by subliminal messaging, both real and imagined, just from living in a highly commercialized society. Peer pressure is not inherently a bad thing; it's only a problem when the pressure is to do something harmful."

Again the media fallacy here. You certainly haven't demonstrated Dawkins and others like him are propaganda--that sounds like a bias right there. The issue with your claim is that you say not all peer pressure and influences are bad, which I agree with, but then rightly so you say that North Korea propaganda and control is unacceptable. You are drawing a line whether you like it or not and I simply draw it after religion.

"You're not the master authority on its definition, either. I never claimed to be, nor did I say anything about child abuse only being about the physical. Straw Man."
Here you hypocritically commit your own blatant strawman. I never claimed to be the master authority of its definition, nor did I say you suggested that all child abuse was only physical. I simply said physical child abuse (like molestation) as an example of the worst side of the spectrum for child abuse. Saying it isn't limited to that doesn't mean you think that, it just means that it isn't limited. There is no need to read between the lines there.

"But I don't call that abuse, because it's not. (Not usually, anyway). Abuse leaves scars, hindering development in such a way that simply living in the world is a much greater challenge than someone who isn't abused. I know; a dear friend of mine is a victim of psychological abuse."
I would could that substantial child abuse. Minor child abuse on the other hand would be failing to properly educate children or indoctrinating them.

"That is a very, very real problem, and I'm just as opposed to it as you. But I don't lump all forms of raising children in a religion together with the harmful practices. It's only harmful when it's inflexible and based on manipulation using negative emotions."
That is definitely the worst part of it, but I still think that forcing religion onto children is not right when a parent controls the situation and could easily give the child information about other religions and athiest, in order allow the child to come to their own conclusions.

 

[dantech]

Search Results for Query: religion child abuse | ReligiousForums.com

 

[LuisDantas]

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?

Do you think that is evidence against the OP? You owe yourself looking into the matter a bit more then.

I agree with the OP, although I must note that many couples just do not know better than to demand their children to follow the religious protocols and cerimonies that they themselves were raised to see as "how things should be".

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

I don't think the OP mentioned any laws. Calling abuse by its proper name does not at all imply that a law should be issued.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Aye, kids should be introduced to guns appropriate for their skill & maturity level. And gun ranges should be properly run by a safety obsessive dictator.

 

[sojourner]

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.

And that's different from being force-fed a bunch of garbage created by modern "realist" nit-wits... how, again??