Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Xris]

Jj why are you supposing abuse has to be how you define abuse

Because it is a legal term with a very specific legal defintion. It would be as idiotic if you tried to redefine murder. Just because you don't like the way a person passes does not give you the right to redefine murder to make a persons passing murder because you don't like the circumstances or outcome. It is the same with religion. You cannot redefine the legal term because you don't like it.

Then the argument should shift to should the legal term be redefined to include religion to fit within the definition, for which many persons here gave insightful answers as to many good reasons why that would not be just, as you cannot simply fit all cases of religion into a child abuse defintion without the defintion losing all meaning.

Plan and simple, many are raised in religion and do not suffer any ill effects of religion. Many overcome their teaching. Many do not, but even in a very large majority of those who do not overcome their indoctrination there is absolutely zero evidence that indoctrination has severely harmed them in any way.

We are not talking about the legality of indoctrinating a child. We are debating the idea that indoctrination should or should not be classified as moral abuse. Many do suffer, in fact most suffer from indoctrination for the rest of their lives. From an atheist perspective the idea that you impose your beliefs on an immature mind is scandalous and immoral.

[Jjpregler]

We are not talking about the legality of indoctrinating a child. We are debating the idea that indoctrination should or should not be classified as moral abuse. Many do suffer, in fact most suffer from indoctrination for the rest of their lives. From an atheist perspective the idea that you impose your beliefs on an immature mind is scandalous and immoral.

Actually, you are talking about the legality. The whole topic of this thread is whether religion is child abuse. It is the thesis of debaters on the other side of the issue to make indoctrination of a child to have a legal recourse in court. Why do I know this, because child abuse is a legal term where there is a legal recourse in court. This would entail having to redefine the legal term of child abuse.

What I have argued is that indoctrination falls so short of the legal standard of child abuse as it is defined presently in most western courts that it is unreasonable to redefine the term to include indoctrination. I have offered several arguments of this position.

If you are discussing whether indoctrination in children is wrong, then I completely agree. I have not once ever argued in this thread that it is not, in fact, I think I made it clear so far that I think it is wrong. However, the other side of the argument has clearly not wanted to stop there, instead it is continued to be argued that it is child abuse, which since it is a legal term would require redefining the legal term for legal recourse in the courts.

Can you not see this? It is not simply a moral right or wrong you are disucssing here. You are discussing the legal term, which includes the legal definition since you are discussing the legal term, and wanting to include indoctrination in this definition.

If you are discussing murder and whether an act of a person which is not currently murder, should be classified as murder is the same thing. Murder is a legal term and classifying an action as murder that is not currently classified as murder entails changing the legal defintion of murder.

[Xris]

We are not talking about the legality of indoctrinating a child. We are debating the idea that indoctrination should or should not be classified as moral abuse. Many do suffer, in fact most suffer from indoctrination for the rest of their lives. From an atheist perspective the idea that you impose your beliefs on an immature mind is scandalous and immoral.

Actually, you are talking about the legality. The whole topic of this thread is whether religion is child abuse. It is the thesis of debaters on the other side of the issue to make indoctrination of a child to have a legal recourse in court. Why do I know this, because child abuse is a legal term where there is a legal recourse in court. This would entail having to redefine the legal term of child abuse.

What I have argued is that indoctrination falls so short of the legal standard of child abuse as it is defined presently in most western courts that it is unreasonable to redefine the term to include indoctrination. I have offered several arguments of this position.

If you are discussing whether indoctrination in children is wrong, then I completely agree. I have not once ever argued in this thread that it is not, in fact, I think I made it clear so far that I think it is wrong. However, the other side of the argument has clearly not wanted to stop there, instead it is continued to be argued that it is child abuse, which since it is a legal term would require redefining the legal term for legal recourse in the courts.

Can you not see this? It is not simply a moral right or wrong you are disucssing here. You are discussing the legal term, which includes the legal definition since you are discussing the legal term, and wanting to include indoctrination in this definition.

If you are discussing murder and whether an act of a person which is not currently murder, should be classified as murder is the same thing. Murder is a legal term and classifying an action as murder that is not currently classified as murder entails changing the legal defintion of murder.

Simply because it may not be criminal offence at the present time does not conclude it is not abuse. Before racial abuse was made illegal the moral argument was still there to argue it was wrong. Burning witches, by the church, was a legal act so to define a moral issue by the legal attention it receives is, if I might comment, slightly naive.

If I had any say in law making I would make it an offence for establishments to encourage or use indoctrinating methods on the young and vulnerable. Schools should not be allowed to teach the belief god as an unarguable subject. A subject that is treated with as much certainty as arithmetic or geography. You ask any child educated in a CE of primary school, who is the mother of Jesus or if god loves him? Its outrageous in the 21C that such abuse is allowed to continue.

[Ecurb]

By far the majority of the witches executed in 16th and 17th Century Europe were executed by the State, not the Church. Who taught Xris otherwise? Whoever it is, that person is guilty of abuse! Xris seems to think it abusive to teach anything that is incorrect. Yet Xris is himself incorrect about many things, and he is not reticient about "teaching" such misinformation to readers of this board. Therefore, by his own muddled logic, he is an abuser.

[Xris]

By far the majority of the witches executed in 16th and 17th Century Europe were executed by the State, not the Church. Who taught Xris otherwise? Whoever it is, that person is guilty of abuse! Xris seems to think it abusive to teach anything that is incorrect. Yet Xris is himself incorrect about many things, and he is not reticient about "teaching" such misinformation to readers of this board. Therefore, by his own muddled logic, he is an abuser.

You as an adult are capable of disagreeing with my position, as you point out, so how am I abusing you? The Church instigated the burning of witches when the state and church were one and the same. It is only through secular ethics the church had its power removed.

[Ecurb]

If you think the Church and the State were "one and the same" during the European Witchcraft craze of the 1500s and 1600s, you need to go back to school and take some history classes. Ecclesastical courts operated the Inquisition (for example), but only on rare occasions were they involved in witchcraft trials.

Yes -- I am "capable of disagreeing" with your opinion. I also think it is bigotted, dogmatic, and anti-intellectual. It is precisely the same kind of thinking that led Native American children to be snatched from their homes because the Indian Agents didn't like what the children were being taught at home -- some "abusive" Native parents taught their children about incorrect religions and Native languages.

[Rederic]

Also, what many call "secular morality" as epitomised by such "experts" as Hitler and his associates has certainly NOT proven to be better than "religious" morals/ethics.

Hitler was a Catholic.

[Xris]

If you think the Church and the State were "one and the same" during the European Witchcraft craze of the 1500s and 1600s, you need to go back to school and take some history classes. Ecclesastical courts operated the Inquisition (for example), but only on rare occasions were they involved in witchcraft trials.

Yes -- I am "capable of disagreeing" with your opinion. I also think it is bigotted, dogmatic, and anti-intellectual. It is precisely the same kind of thinking that led Native American children to be snatched from their homes because the Indian Agents didn't like what the children were being taught at home -- some "abusive" Native parents taught their children about incorrect religions and Native languages.

If you are attempting to inform me that the persecution of what the church described as witches was not biblical inspired your failing dismally.

Those poor young Indians had the unfortunate experience of white men driven by similar biblical instructions. They were indoctrinated into the christian beliefs and were made to attend church. So you are simply giving me an example of where the religous inspired drive to turn innocent minds is once again exposed. You will not find any American atheist condoning the subjugation and indoctrination of nation.

[Ecurb]

Why would you think I was attempting to inform you of anything other than that of which I DID inform you? There were ecclesiastical courts in 16th and 17th Century Europe, and there were Secular courts, run by the State. The secular courts (with a few exceptions) tried the witchcraft cases.

Witchcraft executions were highly unusual until the early 16th century, when a craze of Witchcraft accusations and trials led to convictions and executions. The craze lasted from about 1520 – 1650, and, according to Oxford historian H.R. Trevor-Roper, as many as 500,000 people may have been executed for witchcraft (other historians estimate fewer deaths, but at least 50,000-100,000 people were executed). Witchcraft beliefs, by the way, are not unique to Christians. They are common in many cultures, although the virulence of the European witchcraft craze is bizarre and worthy of study.

Atheists routinely condone subjugation and indoctrination, as anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of Communism in the 20th century would know.

[Jjpregler]

Simply because it may not be criminal offence at the present time does not conclude it is not abuse. Before racial abuse was made illegal the moral argument was still there to argue it was wrong. Burning witches, by the church, was a legal act so to define a moral issue by the legal attention it receives is, if I might comment, slightly naive.

If I had any say in law making I would make it an offence for establishments to encourage or use indoctrinating methods on the young and vulnerable. Schools should not be allowed to teach the belief god as an unarguable subject. A subject that is treated with as much certainty as arithmetic or geography. You ask any child educated in a CE of primary school, who is the mother of Jesus or if god loves him? Its outrageous in the 21C that such abuse is allowed to continue.

Actually, if it does not currently fit the description of the current legal definition of abuse, then I can conclude that presently it is not abuse.

Whether that definition should be changed is another debate. On that debate, you are asking to take a defintion which is generally asccepted currently as severe maltreatment of a child which includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and severe neglect, to include all indoctrination. Examples of such indoctrination range from xsimply attending sunday school classes once a week for 30 minutes to the extreme, where there are extremem situations that may already be clsassified under the current definition of abuse. (And no, churches should not get exempted based on religious objections). But then we need to further clarify what indoctrination is good or bad. Is indoctrination of the capitalist system abuse? Or indoctrination of democracy? Or is it only indoctrination of things that the majority believes to be wrong, or a certain subset of deciders?

You see indoctrination occurs for many different things, not just religion, so the definition itself of being abuse would water the term down to being meaningless. So now your conclusion would be that indoctrination of religion is abuse, but indoctrination of other things which may be correct is ok? So then, what is the measure? Indoctrination of an untrue concept? Then who decides the untruth? If you allow that in this generation, how bad can it be in the next if it were reversed and someone in power decides that atheism is the untruth and mentioning atheist ideas to your child becomes child abuse?

[Xris]

Witchcraft is a biblical invention that religous fanatics used against defenseless individuals. Maybe it was just not Christian but only religous fanatics had the inclination to do gods work and kill any suspected of witchcraft.

Communism is not atheism simply because they opposed religion. Even if you used communism as an example it bares no relationship to the harm religion has caused in last two centuries.

[Apathy]

I believe religion can be considered to be child abuse - in the mental subdivision only, though. I also believe religion can be considered indoctrination. I believe our society is pretty much based on indoctrination.

Teaching could be considered indoctrination, in that you believe a teacher's word to be the absolute truth. A teacher tells you 1+1=2? It is truth because a teacher told you and teachers are always correct. A teacher tells you 1+1=3? It is truth because a teacher told you and teachers are always correct. In the same way parenting can be considered to be indoctrination. Parents raise you, you are to believe in your parents' word and obey them. Failure to comply is punished and aqueisance is rewarded. Children really only start disbelieving in their parents when they realise Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and that scary ghost who lives in the study, chomping off the fingers of people who attempt to open the drawers of Daddy's desk don't actually exist, and by that time their base beliefs have already been determined and ingrained in their still-developing brains.

I found an article once that managed to explain it very clearly. I will attempt to explain it in a similar, but shortened way through paraphrase. Note the word attempt so, please, do not feel angry if the particulars are inaccurate. I am writing this in the span of around fifteen minutes, remember.

Imagine it is a future society. Years ago disaster hit and the human race, as a result, now live underground in a complex cave system. You are an average citizen, and you have just been told that scientists have uncovered ancient documents believed to be from an old civilization on the Surface. These documents say that the sky is a colour called 'aquamarine'. One group believes that 'aquamarine' is a colour similar to green, while the other believes it to be more similar to the colour blue. There is a war, and the result is the 'Greens' win. The Greens decide to teach all future generations that 'the colour aquamarine is green.' They believe this to be such a basic truth that it is not even questioned, and the civilization forever more believes the colour 'aquamarine' is green.

You and I, obviously, believe otherwise. But still - this is a form of indoctrination. You believe it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The generations after the 'Greens' believe it to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

This same theory can be applied to anything. For all we know, blue could be a mutated purple colour, pi could be a number that is simple to find a pattern in, children could be capable of making better decisions than adults, Mars could be capable of sustaining a form of life, and killing could be not as morally reprehensible as we believe. This, of course, can also be applied to theism, atheism, political views, educational, scientific or existiential views, and the opposites of them all, as well as my own beliefs.

However, we will always be surrounded by some form of indoctrination, simply because we cannot experience everything on our own and learn everything on our own, and so have to learn through secondary, third-rate, or even tenth-rate knowledge passed through various people.

In that way it is simply impossible to determine whether I am correct in saying religion is child abuse, or indoctrination, or whether I am incorrect, because we've all been indoctrinated in some way- how do you think commonly accepted 'facts' came into existence, or how your opinions came to life?

Feel free to disagree, I welcome criticisms or even blatant disbelief. I will enjoy debating as I rarely have such a chance because people generally think I am mentally unstable for even thinking of staging a intellectually-challenging debate with them or are too 'busy' to even attempt it.

Regards.

[Xris]

Simply because it may not be criminal offence at the present time does not conclude it is not abuse. Before racial abuse was made illegal the moral argument was still there to argue it was wrong. Burning witches, by the church, was a legal act so to define a moral issue by the legal attention it receives is, if I might comment, slightly naive.

If I had any say in law making I would make it an offence for establishments to encourage or use indoctrinating methods on the young and vulnerable. Schools should not be allowed to teach the belief god as an unarguable subject. A subject that is treated with as much certainty as arithmetic or geography. You ask any child educated in a CE of primary school, who is the mother of Jesus or if god loves him? Its outrageous in the 21C that such abuse is allowed to continue.

Actually, if it does not currently fit the description of the current legal definition of abuse, then I can conclude that presently it is not abuse.

Whether that definition should be changed is another debate. On that debate, you are asking to take a defintion which is generally asccepted currently as severe maltreatment of a child which includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and severe neglect, to include all indoctrination. Examples of such indoctrination range from xsimply attending sunday school classes once a week for 30 minutes to the extreme, where there are extremem situations that may already be clsassified under the current definition of abuse. (And no, churches should not get exempted based on religious objections). But then we need to further clarify what indoctrination is good or bad. Is indoctrination of the capitalist system abuse? Or indoctrination of democracy? Or is it only indoctrination of things that the majority believes to be wrong, or a certain subset of deciders?

You see indoctrination occurs for many different things, not just religion, so the definition itself of being abuse would water the term down to being meaningless. So now your conclusion would be that indoctrination of religion is abuse, but indoctrination of other things which may be correct is ok? So then, what is the measure? Indoctrination of an untrue concept? Then who decides the untruth? If you allow that in this generation, how bad can it be in the next if it were reversed and someone in power decides that atheism is the untruth and mentioning atheist ideas to your child becomes child abuse?

If I proactively teach my children or indoctrinate them into any dogmatic view I would be abusing my position as a father but not to the point to be considered legal abuse. The fact an educational system is allowed to indoctrinate young minds in my opinion should become illegal.

[Groktruth]

Actually, if it does not currently fit the description of the current legal definition of abuse, then I can conclude that presently it is not abuse.

Whether that definition should be changed is another debate. On that debate, you are asking to take a defintion which is generally asccepted currently as severe maltreatment of a child which includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and severe neglect, to include all indoctrination. Examples of such indoctrination range from xsimply attending sunday school classes once a week for 30 minutes to the extreme, where there are extremem situations that may already be clsassified under the current definition of abuse. (And no, churches should not get exempted based on religious objections). But then we need to further clarify what indoctrination is good or bad. Is indoctrination of the capitalist system abuse? Or indoctrination of democracy? Or is it only indoctrination of things that the majority believes to be wrong, or a certain subset of deciders?

You see indoctrination occurs for many different things, not just religion, so the definition itself of being abuse would water the term down to being meaningless. So now your conclusion would be that indoctrination of religion is abuse, but indoctrination of other things which may be correct is ok? So then, what is the measure? Indoctrination of an untrue concept? Then who decides the untruth? If you allow that in this generation, how bad can it be in the next if it were reversed and someone in power decides that atheism is the untruth and mentioning atheist ideas to your child becomes child abuse?

If I proactively teach my children or indoctrinate them into any dogmatic view I would be abusing my position as a father but not to the point to be considered legal abuse. The fact an educational system is allowed to indoctrinate young minds in my opinion should become illegal.

Hear, hear!

[Ecurb]

Witchcraft is a biblical invention that religous fanatics used against defenseless individuals. Maybe it was just not Christian but only religous fanatics had the inclination to do gods work and kill any suspected of witchcraft.

Communism is not atheism simply because they opposed religion. Even if you used communism as an example it bares no relationship to the harm religion has caused in last two centuries.

Well, Commies did kill 100 million people in the 20th century (acc. Stéphane Courtois et. al. in their widely acclaimed book "The Black Book of Communism".). They make the Inquisitors and the Witch Hunters look like small potatoes, in comparison.

How can witchcraft be "a biblical invention" when witches are decried and killed in most known societies, many of which preceded the Bible, and many others of which had never heard of the Bible when they were practicing witch hunts? The witch-hunting craze of the 16th and 17th centuries was horrific, and a great many people from all walks of life were accused of witchcraft (almost half of those executed were men). If you're interested, read H.R. Trevor-Roper's short book "The European Witch-craze of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries."