is forcing religion onto children child abuse?

[gregoryvonubersnythe]

Does forcing religion onto children in their formative years take away their ability to make a informed dicision on the subject and does this constitute as abuse?
I dont think my own opinion carrys much weight on this subject as I am not particuarly knowledgeable on the topic of child physcology so im interested to see what others have to say about it especially if they have some experience in that particular field

 

[Prolescum]

Does forcing religion onto children in their formative years take away their ability to make a informed dicision on the subject and does this constitute as abuse?

1. What do you mean by "forcing"?
2. Many atheists and agnostics were religious in their youth.
3. Teaching your child the tenets of your faith would not be categorised as abuse in and of itself, no.

 

[gregoryvonubersnythe]

Forcing may be a poor choice of word perhaps, I suppose I should be more specific. This is probably more prevalent in the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum, threatening them with divine punishment of one kind or another if they do not ascribe to whatever faith it happens to be while they are to young to really examine objectively what they are being presented with, often by people they trust such as their parents.
Also i did quick google search and couldnt find any studys on this but it would be interesting to see just what percentage of people who have had a religous upbringing later reject that faith either for another theistic belief or athiesm.
Because while it is true many atheists/agnostic had a religious upbringing they may be in the minority of those who have had a religous upbringing. I think that some idea of the percentage of people who have been raised with religion have gone on to question it in later life would be interesting.
Im going to keep on looking for a study which may shed some light on this point but if anyone already knows of one and would be willing to point it out then cool.

 

[SirYeen]

I think the question you posed is to vague to be able to give a decent answer. What beliefs of what religion ? What parts of religion ? (going to church, ritual, inspiration, ...) What would you consider to be forcing ? I think you have to get more concrete.

 

[gregoryvonubersnythe]

.

I think the question you posed is to vague to be able to give a decent answer. What beliefs of what religion ? What parts of religion ? (going to church, ritual, inspiration, ...) What would you consider to be forcing ? I think you have to get more concrete.

My second post was more specific in the aspects of faith and I also addressed the use of the word force which i will admit was poorly chosen. Im not going to specify one particular faith as the points i made in my second post are actually found in most religions.
My opinion on this matter (which should be taken with a pinch of salt as i said in my first post) is in most cases it is doing a disservice to your child to tell them when they are very young that your faith is the one and only true faith and all else is false but it is not child abuse.
The reason i posted this is because I was talking to my girlfriends brother on the subject and he was very much believes that it is, and to some degree i can see his point.
He basically argues that if a child is threatened with for intance eternal damnation, and it is drummed into their head day in day out that if they do not believe they will go to hell, would this not leave them with a sense of fear through out their lives at the prospect of questioning that faith? It is in this circumstance that I get his point.
The NSPCC ( a uk child protection organisation) defines abuse as "any form of physical, emotional or sexual mistreatment or lack of care that leads to injury or harm."
And also says on the subject of emotional abuse
"Emotional abuse is the persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child's emotional development."
as well as
"limitation of exploration and learning"

the quotes were found on their official site which I suggest go on and read the emotional section on in full http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/cpsu/helpandadvice/organisations/defining/definingchildabuse_wda60692.html

So i shall rephrase my question, do you think the sense of fear and the intolerance that some of the more extreme religions try to instill in children can have a lasting negative physcological effect and if so does that constitute child abuse p

 

[Laurens]

I wouldn't take a stance that bringing up children to be religious is abuse. Firstly in most instances the harm is negligible if non-existent, so it would seem inappropriate to lump it in with sexual assaults and other forms of child abuse. Secondly I don't think it makes one look good as an atheist if one goes around stating that all religious parents are child abusers, it's infantile and hyperbolic.

Of course in an idealised utopian society no one would inflict their world-view on their children, but such a society does not, and will not ever exist. And it's not a problem that is unique to theists, all people hand their world-view on to their children in whole, or in part - that's an unavoidable aspect of being a parent.

As with any moral action, intention is an important aspect to consider. Does a religious parent intend to cause their child harm when they take them to church, in the same way that one might when beating their child black and blue with a belt? I'd say the intention is not malicious in the case of bringing up children to be religious, it might be misguided, and it might well cause harm, but in order for the parents to be held culpable for their actions, I'd say that the harm would have to have been caused with intent.

There are cases in which childhood indoctrination might well go as far as outright abuse, but as a general rule, bringing up a child to believe in the bible and taking them to church is not abuse. To say that it is is simply hyperbole and it makes one sound like a dick (for want of a better term).

 

[gregoryvonubersnythe]

Laurens i apologise for the fact that i was editing my previous post while you were posting, I rephrased the question and raised a few more points. You raise some good points but I would argue that intention is irrelevant. A parent may have good intents when he beats his child black and blue, he may truly believe that if he does not do so that child will be worse off. The "spare the rod spoil the child" mentality and though I believe this may be a biblical quote but im not saying this attitude is solely a religous one it just sums up my point rather well

 

[Laurens]

Laurens i apologise for the fact that i was editing my previous post while you were posting, I rephrased the question and raised a few more points. You raise some good points but I would argue that intention is irrelevant. A parent may have good intents when he beats his child black and blue, he may truly believe that if he does not do so that child will be worse off. The "spare the rod spoil the child" mentality and though I believe this is a biblical quote im not saying that it is a religous thing its just the quote sums up my point perfectly.

But when a parent beats their child they know that this will cause their child to cry, they know that it will severely hurt them, even if they misguidedly believe that their actions are beneficial, they are still intentionally causing harm to their kids. You can't say that a parent beats their child in complete ignorance to the fact that it will hurt them. Contrast that with taking a child to church, the parents don't know that the child might possibly be harmed by their upbringing, as far as they are concerned it is wholly beneficial.

 

[gregoryvonubersnythe]

The definition of child abuse i gave the link to gave no mention to the intent of the abuser and rightly so in my opinion all that matters is the end result on the child.
Also I checked in my girlfriends childcare textbooks and the definition given on the nspcc website is pretty much word for word the definition given in there and it has no mention of the intent of the abuser, im still trying to find out whether these are actually the uk legal definitions but im guessing they are.
Intent and the definition of abuse aside however do you believe that in the more extreme cases that it can cause harm?

 

[Laurens]

The definition of child abuse i gave the link to gave no mention to the intent of the abuser and rightly so in my opinion all that matters is the end result on the child.
Also I checked in my girlfriends childcare textbooks and the definition given on the nspcc website is pretty much word for word the definition given in there and it has no mention of the intent of the abuser, im still trying to find out whether these are actually the uk legal definitions but im guessing they are.

Intent and the definition of abuse aside however do you believe that in the more extreme cases that it can cause harm?

Intentions aside, bringing up a child to be religious is not abuse. To call it so would be to hold it up in the same light as someone who beats, enslaves or rapes a child - and that comparison is feeble. Vegetarians often bring up their kids as vegetarians, is that abuse because they aren't allowing the kid to decide which diet to have for themselves? To say that vegetarianism is child abuse is nonsense. The same goes for religion. I think Richard Dawkins should stop making the comparison because it makes him look like a facile, cantankerous old sod.

As I said in my original response there are of course exceptions in which religious upbringing goes with genuine abuse, but there are also no doubt cases of atheist parents abusing their children. This whole rhetoric of religion being child abuse really does make atheists look like reactionary arseholes, and I think it should be dropped for the reasons I have given.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

If you're talking about indoctrination then yes it's child abuse (psychological abuse) and it qualifying as child abuse is not contingent on whether or not the parent is aware that it's child abuse. To present a particular religion as the absolute unquestionable truth to a child (often with the threat of some divine punishment if he strays from it) cripples his ability to critically examine religious beliefs later in life. It's no wonder most people stay with the religion of their parents/culture and criticizing religion is still so taboo to the point of social exclusion for apostasy (or worse *points toward the "religion of peace"* :lol: ).

I don't find that "negligible" at all. I don't have any solution to this, but I hope mentalities will gradually change in future generations to a point where young people truly have a choice to pick a religion (or no religion) without any sort of coercion.

 

[Laurens]

If you're talking about indoctrination then yes it's child abuse (psychological abuse) and it qualifying as child abuse is not contingent on whether or not the parent is aware that it's child abuse. To present a particular religion as the absolute unquestionable truth to a child (often with the threat of some divine punishment if he strays from it) cripples his ability to critically examine religious beliefs later in life. It's no wonder most people stay with the religion of their parents/culture and criticizing religion is still so taboo to the point of social exclusion for apostasy (or worse *points toward the "religion of peace"* :lol: ).

I don't think that is true at all. I was indoctrinated into Christianity as a child, and so were many people on the forums here. I can't speak for everyone, but I can say for myself that I have suffered no negative psychological impact that I could directly attribute to my religious upbringing. Neither did it cripple my ability to critically examine my religious beliefs later in life. All of my brothers were brought up to be Christian and all of them have had no trouble rejecting it later in life.

The social consequences of giving up religion are probably the major factor that prevents people from letting go of their beliefs, rather than the childhood indoctrination. If you were indoctrinated by your parents, yet you grow up into a society that has largely let go of religion then it is very easy to move beyond it. I think people being unable to abandon their beliefs has more to do with the society they inhabit than the beliefs of their parents.

I don't find that "negligible" at all. I don't have any solution to this, but I hope mentalities will gradually change in future generations to a point where young people truly have a choice to pick a religion (or no religion) without any sort of coercion.

I think that indoctrination, bar any of the extreme sort is negligible in this, what it needs is a society in which religion is questioned openly and in which a substantial number of people are living with no religion at all. With those things in place people will have no problem abandoning their religion despite being raised in it, and I'd wager that most would not be psychologically traumatised because they grew up believing it.

 

[gregoryvonubersnythe]

to laurens
I agree that it is not comparable to rape and beatings but do you disagree that there are levels of abuse? that some cases of abuse are worse than others? One slap to the face is not as bad as a hour long beating but they are still both abuse.
To dogmas demise
"To present a particular religion as the absolute unquestionable truth to a child (often with the threat of some divine punishment if he strays from it) cripples his ability to critically examine religious beliefs later in life" you posted this while i was typing this response to laurens and this is the point ive been attempting to make but you put it far better than i was managing so I thank you.
also to laurens
Also laurens you say in the case of indoctrination that intent does not matter? Why should it be different
Also would it be fair to say most people raised religous stay religious? I dont know for a fact and as I said earlier I have attempted to find a study of this on google and have so far failed if you know of such i would be most interested but again as i said earlier you may be in the minority of people who have questioned the faith they grew up with.

 

[Laurens]

to laurens
I agree that it is not comparable to rape and beatings but do you disagree that there are levels of abuse? that some cases of abuse are worse than others? One slap to the face is not as bad as a hour long beating but they are still both abuse.

Yes there are different levels of abuse. Taking your children to church and teaching them what you believe about your religion is not abuse by any definition that I am aware of.

Also laurens you say in the case of indoctrination that intent does not matter? Why should it be different

I think it does matter. The intention of the parent who takes their child to church with them is a lot different to the intention of the parent who wilfully neglects their child. Hence intention does come into play.

Also would it be fair to say most people raised religous stay religious?

I think that depends on the society more than the upbringing, that was my point. Here in the UK most people of my generation are not religious, so here a lot of people abandon religion despite upbringing. In a place in which most people are piously religious then I'd say that most people would stay religious. So my answer on that would be; it depends on the demographics of the society. I couldn't give a universal answer to that.

 

[gregoryvonubersnythe]

I think it does matter. The intention of the parent who takes their child to church with them is a lot different to the intention of the parent who wilfully neglects their child. Hence intention does come into play.
quote]

I did not mean the difference between someone who takes their child to church and willful neglect. What i meant was you accept indoctrination as a form of abuse regardless of intent and youve stated before that intention of the act matters, im just pointing out the contradiction. Since intentions are subjective you can only judge an action on its effects and I would say intent only changes how we should react

 

[Laurens]

I think it does matter. The intention of the parent who takes their child to church with them is a lot different to the intention of the parent who wilfully neglects their child. Hence intention does come into play.
quote]

I did not mean the difference between someone who takes their child to church and willful neglect. What i meant was you accept indoctrination as a form of abuse regardless of intent and youve stated before that intention of the act matters, im just pointing out the contradiction. Since intentions are subjective you can only judge an action on its effects and I would say intent only changes how we should react

I don't accept indoctrination as a form of abuse. I think a case can be made for that without taking intentions into account, but I think intent is important to consider when looking at moral actions. If I accidentally bump into you and you fall and break your wrist - this action is morally different to if I intentionally shoved you down to the ground. Do you really think intentions don't come into our judgement of those two scenarios?

Now I'd say that bringing up a child to be religious is analogous to the accidental bumping into you. The parents are not aware that their actions might be harmful, as far as they are concerned it isn't. Ergo I do not think it should be viewed in the same light as someone intentionally hurting a child. They are not acting out of malice, nor do they have any intent to cause harm - that is my point, and I think that this does change how we should view it.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Does forcing religion onto children in their formative years take away their ability to make a informed dicision on the subject and does this constitute as abuse?

1. What do you mean by "forcing"?
2. Many atheists and agnostics were religious in their youth.
3. Teaching your child the tenets of your faith would not be categorised as abuse in and of itself, no.

1.- By "forcing" I assume he means indoctrinating your children according to your beliefs from a young age.
2.- Yes, but even then, it's quite hard for them to give it up later, when it's been taught as dogma from an early age.
3.- Well, if it involves discouraging them from free thought and almost forces them into a particular faith like little robots, for me it's a bit of a stretch of the word "abuse" but it's not really that far away.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I suppose certain rituals could be considered abuse, but I really don't think that indoctrination, in and of itself, qualifies as child abuse.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I suppose certain rituals could be considered abuse, but I really don't think that indoctrination, in and of itself, qualifies as child abuse.

I think it does, to a certain degree, qualify as child abuse if you're stopping the child from free thought, reasoning independent from virtually any dogma - one of the things that distinguishes us as humans.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I get what you're saying, CosmicJoghurt, but do you really feel that religious indoctrination should qualify as child abuse? For real? What about political indoctrination?