Philosophy Discussion Forums

I don't think spanking and corporal punishment are good or effective parenting techniques. I don't think screaming is either. But physical abuse isn't the only kind of abuse. Putting a child in timeout can be abuse. Depriving a child of pleasures like watching TV can be abuse. What distinguishes abuse from non-abusive bad parenting is intent and, as you say being out of control. We can often abduce this from actions when they are in the extreme or very common. We can abduce that if a parent beats a child half to death over the course of an hour that the parent was probably out of control and selfishly giving into their own sadistic need to use somebody as a punching bag not making a thoughtful decision to try to do what is best for the child. If a parent calmly insists their child must not watch TV and the parent has an explanation for this regarding the child's well-being as opposed to the parent just wanting to be selfishly mean, even if they do not tell that explanation to the child but to any would-be child protection agents, such as that they read watching TV is unhealthy, we can abduce that it is not abuse. Child abuse is a crime, and to be convicted the mens rea must be shown. You seem to be creating a hypotheticals in which the mens rea seems to clearly be abduced from the extremity of the actions themselves at least assuming no extenuating circumstances and then use that to conclude that the mens rea doesn't matter.

If abuse was defined solely by harmfulness not by the so-called good-faith intent of a reasonable parent, then that would mean we need the government -- or some similar authoritive child protection force -- to legalistic every aspect of raising a child based on what it thinks is best for a child. Everyone would indeed need to be the same religion or non-religion by law, assuming you want child abuse to be illegal. Whether you give your child 1% or 2% milk with dinner would be specified by law and to choose the other would be a crime, child abuse. That is absurd, so therefore argumentum ad absurdum the premise -- that child abuse doesn't depend on the good-faith intention of the parent to do well by the child -- is false. Still, the stronger and more convincing the studies that 1 kind of milk is better for children and the more certain we are a parent has read those studies, the more we can abduce from a parent without noticeable extenuating circumstances that the parent's choice to apparently cause harm to their child wasn't an attempt to help their child. Nowadays, it might generally be considered abuse for a parent to put their baby to sleep laying on their stomach even though we don't consider our parents and grandparents for doing the same because our abductive conclusion of abuse is based on the fact that we know parents nowadays have been clearly told about the dangers of putting a baby on its stomach to sleep while our parents were actually advised to do it. It's within that context of assumed knowledge that we are often able to abduce abuse.

Misty wrote:So, parents, the lesson for today is just be in a good mood and be nice with good intentions when you abuse your child and that makes it OK. Dumb.

That's not what I said, but if it was simply saying "dumb" wouldn't be much of a rebuttal.

Scott, By not quoting my entire post, which answered your first paragraph, and making it look like the word dumb was my rebuttal was misleading. You may have not meant to word your question like you did, Scott, but please take responsibility for your words. If it is not really what you meant to say, then apologize and rephrase your question.

Child abuse is defined as:

*Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or *An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Further in the legal codes, injuries and harm are clearly defined as to what injuries are serious physical injuries. emotional harm is defined, sexual abuse and exploitation is defined.

There is nothing in the defintion about parental intent. Nothing in this definition suggests that giving your child a time out (unless it is on a shark tank) is abuse. If a parent spanks their child (in many states corporal punishment is still legal) but causes harm, they are guilty of child abuse, in spite of their intent to discipline as allowed by law. There is no mens rea in the definition.

Putting a child in time out or restricting their TV time will not ever result in abuse by this defnition. Now puttng a child in timeout and leaving them unattended for extended period of time in which they injure themselves is different, but that should be clearly differentiated from putting child in timeout.

Jjpregler wrote:Child abuse is defined as:

*Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation; or *An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.

Further in the legal codes, injuries and harm are clearly defined as to what injuries are serious physical injuries. emotional harm is defined, sexual abuse and exploitation is defined.

There is nothing in the defintion about parental intent. Nothing in this definition suggests that giving your child a time out (unless it is on a shark tank) is abuse. If a parent spanks their child (in many states corporal punishment is still legal) but causes harm, they are guilty of child abuse, in spite of their intent to discipline as allowed by law. There is no mens rea in the definition.

Putting a child in time out or restricting their TV time will not ever result in abuse by this defnition. Now puttng a child in timeout and leaving them unattended for extended period of time in which they injure themselves is different, but that should be clearly differentiated from putting child in timeout.

So making them read the bible constantly and insisting they attend church is not abuse. Is it abuse of parental powers to brain wash a child into believing in a god long before they are adult enough to form opinions in a mature fashion. If your child went away to boarding school and came back an ardent Trotskyite or openly admitted to wanting to act as terrorist, would that cause you imagine they has been abused mentally? Does abuse simply have to be an act against the law?

Xris wrote: So making them read the bible constantly and insisting they attend church is not abuse. Is it abuse of parental powers to brain wash a child into believing in a god long before they are adult enough to form opinions in a mature fashion.

No it is not abuse. It is not the best choice to teach your children that mythology is truth and it is not raising critically thinking non-ignorant adults, but it is not abuse. Abuse does not equate with bad parenting decisions.

Xris wrote:If your child went away to boarding school and came back an ardent Trotskyite or openly admitted to wanting to act as terrorist, would that cause you imagine they has been abused mentally? Does abuse simply have to be an act against the law?

Actually, yes, "child abuse" is a legal term with a specific legal definition. Just as "murder" is a legal term. But even if one wants to go beyond the definition for hypothesis sake, "abuse" itself is a strong term. It cannot be done passively. It has to be done actively unto a child.

I worked for 10 years in the field. I have seen thousands of real cases of abuse. It is actually appaling to compare a child being sent to church in the same category as a mother holding her child under water, or a father twisting his sons arm until it breaks, or another mother taking a knife to her daughter's face because she was jealous of her looks.

JjPregler, Thanks, I appreciate your point of view and sharing your personal experience. It helps to remind me that cognitively everything comes back to us. Personal responsibility takes over as you mature and are let go into the medium of adulthood.

Jjpregler wrote:

Xris wrote: So making them read the bible constantly and insisting they attend church is not abuse. Is it abuse of parental powers to brain wash a child into believing in a god long before they are adult enough to form opinions in a mature fashion.

No it is not abuse. It is not the best choice to teach your children that mythology is truth and it is not raising critically thinking non-ignorant adults, but it is not abuse. Abuse does not equate with bad parenting decisions.

Xris wrote:If your child went away to boarding school and came back an ardent Trotskyite or openly admitted to wanting to act as terrorist, would that cause you imagine they has been abused mentally? Does abuse simply have to be an act against the law?

Actually, yes, "child abuse" is a legal term with a specific legal definition. Just as "murder" is a legal term. But even if one wants to go beyond the definition for hypothesis sake, "abuse" itself is a strong term. It cannot be done passively. It has to be done actively unto a child.

I worked for 10 years in the field. I have seen thousands of real cases of abuse. It is actually appaling to compare a child being sent to church in the same category as a mother holding her child under water, or a father twisting his sons arm until it breaks, or another mother taking a knife to her daughter's face because she was jealous of her looks.

Thats physical abuse, mental abuse comes in many guises, many degrees. Abusing power is not always illegal but it is abuse.

Xris wrote: Thats physical abuse, mental abuse comes in many guises, many degrees. Abusing power is not always illegal but it is abuse.

Mental abuse is emotional abuse. It is repeated the persistent emotional ill-treatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child's emotional development. Quite often, physical abuse overlaps with emotional abuse. However, there are cases where it does not.

Classified examples of of emotional abuse in the current literature consists of: verbal and non-verbal rejection; corruption of a minor by forcing or encouraging anti social, deviant, or criminal behaviors; threatening the child with severe punishments; or ignoring or isolating the child from contact.

Quite often physical abuse crosses over and include emotional abuse as most cases of physical abuse will cause adverse emotional side effects. However, not all physical abuse causes emotional damage. Such as cases of single incident abuse. It is possible that single incident cases do not cause emotional harm to a child.

Cases I have encountered included locking a child in the basement and throwing food and water down, severe degrading of the child on a consistent basis, prostituting your child to pay for your crack addiction, sharing your crack with your 9 year old, and many other horrible stories. So again, you cannot even come close to make taking a child to church (as long as it is a normal church that most are associated with) with the horrors that these real victims of abuse have encountered.

Now it is always possible to dig up the most extreme cases and hold them up as examples, but even so that does not make religion child abuse. I think a strong case could be made for Westboro Baptist Church being a case of emotional abuse, however, the extreme cases which are exceptions to the rule does not make all of the other churches abusive. If the priest sexually abuses the altar boys, the sexual abuse is the abuse and not the choice to take the child to the church. If you know the priest is sexually abusing your child, and still place the child in that environment, that is abuse.

As an analogy, Jerry Sandusky was just convicted of child sexual crimes, which he used a non-profit child assistance program to exploit the children. Does that mean that sending your child to any similar program is now abuse? No, it clearly is not. Sending your child for a conjugal visit to Jerry Sandusky would be though.

Further, let's look at the opposite while we are on the subject. Even being wrong, can religion be emotionally supportive to a person or child. YES! Here is the problem in calling it abuse. Can a church ever be a supportive institution to a child in a difficult situation? Can a child discuss difficult issues with a youth paster and get a friendly, thoughtful, and supportive answer? Can a child of an alcoholic parent go to a youth group as an emotional escape of the home and develop strong emotional ties and support there that assists them in developing into a healthy adult in spite of the issues at home? Yes, it is possible.

To conclude, child abuse is a very serious problem. Religion in the normal use as practiced by millions while misguided is not abuse. While everyone can concoct some example of an extreme case of a parent/religion rising to a case of abuse, in the normal course of life and activities, it does not rise to the level of abuse. And for every example of extreme religious situation, a real life example of a nurturing church environment can be shown.

So you agree, it can be abuse dependant on the degree. So by that reasoning any indoctrination can be considered as abuse. I think we are all aware of the extremes but religous indoctrination can take the form of abuse. It certain messed with my move into adult hood with all the guilt complexes it generated. It can take extreme motivation to instill into a child fundamentalist attitudes that will persist for the rest of their lives. In the sixties most children were abused by the education system with canning and even battering. I know I had my share of the cane but when I look back the most damaging influences were mental more than physical.

Xris wrote:So you agree, it can be abuse dependant on the degree. So by that reasoning any indoctrination can be considered as abuse. I think we are all aware of the extremes but religous indoctrination can take the form of abuse. It certain messed with my move into adult hood with all the guilt complexes it generated. It can take extreme motivation to instill into a child fundamentalist attitudes that will persist for the rest of their lives. In the sixties most children were abused by the education system with canning and even battering. I know I had my share of the cane but when I look back the most damaging influences were mental more than physical.

Your first two sentences can be agreed to as they are conditional. They are based on what is actually used to indoctrinate. But I don't believe we agree.

Were your guilt complexes a result of the religion or were they the result of your own personal brain chemistry? How can several people come from the same indoctrination process exit the process in different emotional conditions.

The thing with emotional abuse, true emotional abuse, most of the people who endure the same treatment have negative emotional conditions as a result. Some as a result of religion combined with their own personal make up may suffer emotional conditions as a result, however, most do not.

What of other conditioning that parents instill in children? Which of those is abuse? What about training/disciplining a child to do homework? What about teaching a child to clean their plates after dinner? These may require the same amount of motivation for a child's cooperation, do they rise to the standard of abuse?

However, you are an adult now and presumably atheist (by the conversation as best I can tell) so the difference appears to be is that you believe your parents instillation of religious ideas were mistaken. Does a mistaken idea being instilled constitute abuse? What if a parent raises a child to be republican? Is that abuse?

So now answer this: was there any benefit to your being raised a religious person? Are you a moral atheist due to your upbringing? Have you committed any felonies or do you instinctively know that is wrong due to your upbringing?

Jjpregler wrote:

Xris wrote:So you agree, it can be abuse dependant on the degree. So by that reasoning any indoctrination can be considered as abuse. I think we are all aware of the extremes but religous indoctrination can take the form of abuse. It certain messed with my move into adult hood with all the guilt complexes it generated. It can take extreme motivation to instill into a child fundamentalist attitudes that will persist for the rest of their lives. In the sixties most children were abused by the education system with canning and even battering. I know I had my share of the cane but when I look back the most damaging influences were mental more than physical.

Your first two sentences can be agreed to as they are conditional. They are based on what is actually used to indoctrinate. But I don't believe we agree.

Were your guilt complexes a result of the religion or were they the result of your own personal brain chemistry? How can several people come from the same indoctrination process exit the process in different emotional conditions.

The thing with emotional abuse, true emotional abuse, most of the people who endure the same treatment have negative emotional conditions as a result. Some as a result of religion combined with their own personal make up may suffer emotional conditions as a result, however, most do not.

What of other conditioning that parents instill in children? Which of those is abuse? What about training/disciplining a child to do homework? What about teaching a child to clean their plates after dinner? These may require the same amount of motivation for a child's cooperation, do they rise to the standard of abuse?

However, you are an adult now and presumably atheist (by the conversation as best I can tell) so the difference appears to be is that you believe your parents instillation of religious ideas were mistaken. Does a mistaken idea being instilled constitute abuse? What if a parent raises a child to be republican? Is that abuse?

So now answer this: was there any benefit to your being raised a religious person? Are you a moral atheist due to your upbringing? Have you committed any felonies or do you instinctively know that is wrong due to your upbringing?

Abuse is misuse of power over another. If your parents instill in you a form dogmatic ideology that can harm or interfere with your maturity then it is abuse. A teenager who chooses to become a nun or a priest has to be indoctrinated in my opinion. To me that teenager has been abused. Religion is some how excused this indoctrination by society. If you took away this strange sanctity it would never be allowed. I taught my children to behave in moral and empathetic manner without the need to convince them of myths.

How about we proceed hypothetically from the point of view that we have agreed that there can be long lasting negative affects of exposure to religious indoctrination but not always. Some people will live rich lives after having been brought up in faith and therefore would not seek redress. With this knowledge approach the practical question of weather or not the state (through the courts) would ever have any standing to rule on this matter or would it be a violation of the separation between the church and state or possibly a dangerous intrusion/encroachment into the family as an institution.

Grecorivera5150 wrote:How about we proceed hypothetically from the point of view that we have agreed that there can be long lasting negative affects of exposure to religious indoctrination but not always. Some people will live rich lives after having been brought up in faith and therefore would not seek redress. With this knowledge approach the practical question of weather or not the state (through the courts) would ever have any standing to rule on this matter or would it be a violation of the separation between the church and state or possibly a dangerous intrusion/encroachment into the family as an institution.

Many children survive physical abuse and become balanced humans but they were still abused. I can not imagine secular courts could ever prosecute a parent for not giving their child a balanced view of religion. We all are concerned when a vulnerable teenager falls into the hands of a strange sect but as an atheist I believe all children exposed to religion with a bias are abused.

Xris wrote: I believe all children exposed to religion with a bias are abused.

This is the problem, you have not given any sound arguments in favor of your belief except for your own personal experience. And your defintion of abuse as "misuse of power" is a poor defintion of abuse in this context. You are biased. Your bias leads toward atheism. Therefore, your conclusion is a reflection of your bias.

In the normal course of religion, a large majority of the children suffer no adverse affects of religoin in their life. You have yet to offer any evidence to the contrary except for extreme cases. In the normal course of religion, a majority of the children grow into moral adults. You have not even argued that this is not a result.

A thing that rarely has negative affects and mostly has positive affects in many areas of a persons life cannot be called abuse.

I am an atheist. I believe teaching children religion is an error of our culture. I wish that all persons would become educated as to the truth of the religious memes and mythology. But thus far, there is no evidence or coherent argument that it is abuse. Only feelings and beleifs, which are not better than the ignorance of religiousity to start with.

Develop strong arguments why atheism is the reasonable reponse to the evidence. Develop strong counters to the religious persons negations. However, resorting to "shock" and attempting to label in an evil category does not further the argument, it only cheapens it and it takes away from the clear and coherent arguments of a sound person.

Like the Communists and the Nazis, Xris evidently thinks that all children should be taught to think exactly like Xris does. Anything else constitutes "abuse", and "reeducation" is doubtless necessary (probably at some gulag or concentration camp).

I'll admit that Agamemnon was a religiously abusive to his daughter Iphegenia (he had her sacrificed to propitiate the Gods for the war against Troy), but that was an extreme situation.

I'm sure some born again Christians think it abusive of parents NOT to teach their children to believe in Jesus as a personal savior. They're wrong, too -- just like Xris is.