Religious education is a form of child abuse

[almaty 19]

religion based thread sheesh...............

Edited June 19, 2007 by almaty

[KarenCee 3]

a slightly different spin on this - different from the intellectual teaching specifics of religion of secular humanism is the refusal of medical treatment due to religious beliefs.

Example: my mother is a special education teacher and has been for 23 years. She had one student that she wound up as a personal aide for 5 years throughout his primary school. He had severe cerebral palsy, however was a sweet, intellegent boy. She not only was his educator, but also taught him manners. He was taught by her to greet people sitting up straight in his chair, and to not drool on himself (he had the ability to remember to swallow) among other things.

He would go home and be placed on a mat in the living room with a bib on and a diaper. No enrichment, no activities, no WHEELCHAIR, so assisted devices allowed in their home.

That to me was abuse. In the morning my mother would have to start all over with him for five years.

I agree, much more so than teaching your child your belief system.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Did you by chance see that documentary Jesus Camp?

We often talk about dangerous fundamentalists, yet seem to have no problem with the sort of weird mumbo-jumbo cultist indoctrination that goes on in places like this.

[poppscc 0]

I would argue the opposite:

Religious indoctrination is a good thing because religious people are more likely to donate money and time to the needy.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

btw, this is an obvious troll thread that is offensive and not well thought out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would argue the opposite:

Religious indoctrination is a good thing because religious people are more likely to donate money and time to the needy.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

btw, this is an obvious troll thread that is offensive and not well thought out.

Hmmmm... I'd suggest a person can be religious without being "indoctrinated" IMO.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I would argue the opposite:

Religious indoctrination is a good thing because religious people are more likely to donate money and time to the needy.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

btw, this is an obvious troll thread that is offensive and not well thought out.

Well, the OP was one who indulged in changing ordinary threads to flame-wars, until I started a thread last year about Paul Martin's resignation. A few exchanges with other Canucks, and we had a full-fledged flame-war (he was on there to try to make one, but in the end he proved redundant).

So, he's now trying jotun (a large-to-enormous troll, much featured in Norse mythology) threads, because he's not really innovative. :lol:

Edited June 19, 2007 by CherryXS

[poppscc 0]

I would argue the opposite:

Religious indoctrination is a good thing because religious people are more likely to donate money and time to the needy.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

btw, this is an obvious troll thread that is offensive and not well thought out.

Hmmmm... I'd suggest a person can be religious without being "indoctrinated" IMO.

of course they can, but this thread is referring to children. Children are impressionable, and to teach in a secular manner or a religious manner, there will ALWAYS be indoctrination. Secular or religious, EVERYONE has a certain amount of bias to one or another. I have no problem indoctrinating my son with religion, and I'm sure others will have no problems indoctrinating their kids to live secular lifestyles. If my biased leads me to bring my son to food drives, to donate old cloths, to participate in church events, how can that possibly be twisted into a bad thing? I believe my son is better off having deeply religious values rather than *san fransisco values*.

[mawilson 2,133]

Hey, didn't I have a poll about this?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Hey, didn't I have a poll about this?

Yes, so you just proved my point that Gupt is not innovative.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I would argue the opposite:

Religious indoctrination is a good thing because religious people are more likely to donate money and time to the needy.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

btw, this is an obvious troll thread that is offensive and not well thought out.

Hmmmm... I'd suggest a person can be religious without being "indoctrinated" IMO.

of course they can, but this thread is referring to children. Children are impressionable, and to teach in a secular manner or a religious manner, there will ALWAYS be indoctrination. Secular or religious, EVERYONE has a certain amount of bias to one or another. I have no problem indoctrinating my son with religion, and I'm sure others will have no problems indoctrinating their kids to live secular lifestyles. If my biased leads me to bring my son to food drives, to donate old cloths, to participate in church events, how can that possibly be twisted into a bad thing? I believe my son is better off having deeply religious values rather than *san fransisco values*.

Its not about individual biases IMO - its a matter of perspective. Indoctrination (essentially brain-washing) is generally a negative term.

You can bring up your child to have a moral/religious conscience without subjecting him/her to the "Jesus Camps" of the world, where a kid can get a beating for not being able to remember lines of scripture. I'm all for spirituality, just not for religiosity.

A person can memorise and recite all the scripture they want, it doesn't mean they understand the ideas behind it, IMO.

[homesick_american 1]

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.

Schools don't teach secular humanism.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Schools don't teach secular humanism.

I agree with that. More specifically (for sake of argument) how exactly do we fit religion into the teaching of:

a) Science

B) English Language / Literature

c) Math

d) Geography

e) History

f) Craft, Design & Technology

Does the fact that these subjects must be taught on their own merits suggest that the school as a whole embraces a particular branch of philosophy that is anti-religion?

Moreover, don't kids choose which subjects they want to study - towards the end of their high school years? If religious ed classes aren't getting enough willing applicants to justify keeping the classes open - how is the school to blame for that?

Guess the question is whether schools are promoting secular attitudes, or rather are simply reflecting the prevailing public attitudes.

[Alex+R 0]

It's indoctrination to the extent that the child is learning what his or her religion is, but indoctrination doesn't entail closed-mindedness.

Doesn't it? I don't follow. Indoctrination in one religious worldview, if successful, prevents children from have a fully open questioning mind. It's teaching a child to accept a point of view unquestioningly. Teaching your child, "we believe x because x is true" is very different from "I believe x, but you can believe anything you want." I think most kids are getting the former, which is indoctrination and teaching kids to not ask questions.

You believe, say, that conflict diamonds make bad wedding gifts. You believe that because you believe it is true. You probably also believe that evolution is the way to explain the proliferation of the species. You believe that because you believe it is true. You believe that basic human dignity is common to all human beings. You believe that you because you believe it is true.

Some of your beliefs, I'd wager, weren't things you reasoned to, but values your parents taught you. Yet none of your beliefs, presumably, prevent you from thinking critically. Were they abusing you? Surely there are some values you hold as deeply as the Christians'. I'd be willing to bet that you think slavery is an absolute bad thing.

Why would the same be any less true for the Christian? If they're teaching kids not to ask questions, that's one thing, but that's different from it being caused just because they believe something is true. What I'm saying is that the vast intellectual traditions of religion provide good evidence that thinking critically and believing in God aren't mutually exclusive.

I make no claim on behalf of the Baptists or anyone still reading Genesis literally 1400 years after Augustine thought that taking Scripture literally was a good way to make silly errors. All I'm saying is that the model of "indoctrinate child, child never thinks" is no more true of the theist than it is of most anyone else.

Here's where I don't agree: teaching kids right and wrong (as your culture interprets it) is completely separate from teaching them an entire framework of a worldview based in mythology and that can later justify hatred, remove personal moral responsibility from their lives, and instill early that their religion is correct and others are wrong. I just don't see teaching kids right and wrong as the same thing as religion, which gives them the "why" things are right and wrong for you. So, murder is wrong because it harms others, or murder is wrong because it violates a commandment? The latter to me is a sick way to look at life and one that shouldn't be passed on to children. I can't respect teaching children to behave a certain way for some later material reward instead of teaching them that doing good is its own reward (as in the tradition of secular humanism).

Of course I and everyone else learn values from our parents. That's not the same as learning it within a tradition other than the human one, which we all can share. For example, I don't believe conflict diamonds make bad gifts because I believe it's true, as you said (and as if it's some sort of unquestioned truth passed down to me); I believe they're bad gifts for a number of reasons based in the tradition that people should not harm other people unless necessary. My beliefs don't reflect anything that practically every western culture doesn't believe. The values reflected in children's PBS programming still pretty much work for me. And I think many religions teach these types of morals or some variant, but from within some sort of bizarre mythical framework. And most of them teach hate alongside those morals. And provide justification for hateful behavior via interpretation of their holy book.

When everything goes back to a holy book, the framework a child emerges with is so, so different from that of a kid with no religious background that I don't see those two children's moral systems as being comparable.

eta: I don't think anyone is saying that religious people can't think critically. Of course most of the great thinkers before the last century were believers and I hardly see that as being an issue here.

Edited June 19, 2007 by Alex+R

[Cassie 8]

nvm.

[Mags 112]

I would argue the opposite:

Religious indoctrination is a good thing because religious people are more likely to donate money and time to the needy.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

btw, this is an obvious troll thread that is offensive and not well thought out.

Well, the OP was one who indulged in changing ordinary threads to flame-wars, until I started a thread last year about Paul Martin's resignation. A few exchanges with other Canucks, and we had a full-fledged flame-war (he was on there to try to make one, but in the end he proved redundant).

So, he's now trying jotun (a large-to-enormous troll, much featured in Norse mythology) threads, because he's not really innovative. :lol:

Actually, this thread seems to be full of people discussing the subject matter sensibly and politely. I would ask that issues carried over from other threads be kept there and not brought over into this one. "Baiting" of members is also not tolerated and I ask that the personal "digs" against the OP be stopped.

Back to topic! Thanks!