Religious education is a form of child abuse

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Religious education is a form of child abuse and violates the rights of children, contends a thesis to be considered by secular humanists at the Center for Inquiry's congress in Beijing this October.

[...]

"Such abuse begins with the involuntary involvement of children in religious practices from the time they are born," says Narisetti. "All religions, through ritual, preaching, and religious texts, seek to bring children into day-to-day religious practice."

"This gives holy books and scriptures, as well as those who teach them, an early grip on the developing minds of young people, leaving an indelible impression on them," said Narisetti, calling Sunday schools, madrassas, or Jewish or Hindu temples, centers of indoctrination for children.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061805.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting...would that include parents teaching their kids about their beliefs?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[trueimage 0]

But it's ok for public schools to teach secular humanism to our children and that's not child abuse? I'm not a debator and not interested in debating, arguing, or exchanging insults with anyone, but I had to ask that.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But it's ok for public schools to teach secular humanism to our children and that's not child abuse?

Secular education, at its core, is about intellectual openness. Religious education is the opposite. Teaching a child to think is not abuse. Conditioning a child to not think is.

[Ta Ta 1]

not even worth my time to respond in depth.....another religious versus

non religious mud slinging fest. Have at it !

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

not even worth my time to respond in depth.....

But clearly worth your time to post a shallow response.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But it's ok for public schools to teach secular humanism to our children and that's not child abuse?

Secular education, at its core, is about intellectual openness. Religious education is the opposite. Teaching a child to think is not abuse. Conditioning a child to not think is.

I think most people once they are old enough to think for themselves re-examine whatever beliefs were indoctrinated in them and decide for themselves what to believe. I could see how indoctrination of a religion could be abusive to children, but teaching children about a religious belief isn't necessarily abusive.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[William33 110]

This one could go on for weeks.

People teach or allow their own to be taught things that are acceptable to them. There will always be people that disagree with the context of those teachings, creating circular argument and debate.

Who is right? Well, it depends on who you speak with. Thus, it will always be a non-debatable issue.

I am sure the regulars will figure out a way though.

Edited June 19, 2007 by William33

[Ta Ta 1]

not even worth my time to respond in depth.....

But clearly worth your time to post a shallow response.

Yes my dear, the shallow response was all that was needed to make my point.

Carry on

[pedroh 21]

But it's ok for public schools to teach secular humanism to our children and that's not child abuse?

Secular education, at its core, is about intellectual openness. Religious education is the opposite. Teaching a child to think is not abuse. Conditioning a child to not think is.

good point...

[Scott & Lai 12]

But it's ok for public schools to teach secular humanism to our children and that's not child abuse? I'm not a debator and not interested in debating, arguing, or exchanging insults with anyone, but I had to ask that.

I was thinking the same thing.

Secular education, at its core, is about intellectual openness. Religious education is the opposite. Teaching a child to think is not abuse. Conditioning a child to not think is.

So, secular education is open to religious ideas? And, of course, never openly hostile?

[Caladan 19]

Religious education doesn't preclude intellectual openness. All of the world's major religions have well-respected, thoughtful intellectual traditions. Islam solely pretty much preserved Greek thought, then it was picked up by Christianity. Judaism has a number of brilliant philosophers, as does Buddhism and Hinduism.

Methinks the secular humanists either fail to understand religion or fail to understand child abuse. Either way, they're overdue for a cranio-proctological extraction.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Religious education doesn't preclude intellectual openness. All of the world's major religions have well-respected, thoughtful intellectual traditions. Islam solely pretty much preserved Greek thought, then it was picked up by Christianity. Judaism has a number of brilliant philosophers, as does Buddhism and Hinduism.

Methinks the secular humanists either fail to understand religion or fail to understand child abuse. Either way, they're overdue for a cranio-proctological extraction.

[pedroh 21]

Religious education doesn't preclude intellectual openness. All of the world's major religions have well-respected, thoughtful intellectual traditions. Islam solely pretty much preserved Greek thought, then it was picked up by Christianity. Judaism has a number of brilliant philosophers, as does Buddhism and Hinduism.

Methinks the secular humanists either fail to understand religion or fail to understand child abuse. Either way, they're overdue for a cranio-proctological extraction.

as long as religious education doesn't clash with logical assumptions, yeah, it's harmless.. but, the fight for evolution vs creationism, big bang, gravity! I mean.. when you deny the logical facts just because an unproven dogma says so.. then, it's against intellectual openness..