Philosophy Discussion Forums

All things can be abuse. Does one intend harm? I could feed my child peanuts not realizing the child would become allergic and die of shock. I can teach my child Jesus loves him but the child's life may cause him to wonder or become angry and decide not to believe. Did I abuse my child? Likewise I could teach my child to be atheist and the child could just as well be harmed by that. While all people (who are mentally healthy) should strive for good toward others, there are always going to be harm caused by good intentions as well as harm from bad intentions. While I would not intentionally harm my child, I have hurt them. It is impossible to never hurt another person even if your intentions are good.

People who seek out others to harm are very damaged. It is evil, but so is unintentional harm. Evil is a spectrum in a world of good and evil. A mentally competent person knows what their intent is, be it good or evil.

All religion, all schools, all homes, all people etc., have potential for both good and harm. Let' blow up the world and be done with it!

I am a person capable of good and evil, intentional and unintentional, I know which one I use, and I may get back another persons good or bad intentions. Crap shoot. Welcome to the world of good and evil.

Misty if by chance your six year old child had to be placed in a boarding school and on returning six months later they expressed their belief that god abhorred homosexuals and admitted that all adulterers should be stoned. Would you believe that the indoctrination was harmful? My children did not suffer those extremes but they did come home with tales of Christ that were taught as certainties. As an atheist I did not try not to give an alternative view point because at their young age I did not want them suffering conflict . Equally, If your child came home cursing god and Jesus would you feel the teachers had abused their position and feel the need to correct them? Buddhism, Judaism,Islam, Christianity, Hinduism can not be taught at schools with the intention of impressing the pupil with any dogmatic beliefs.

Xris wrote:Misty if by chance your six year old child had to be placed in a boarding school and on returning six months later they expressed their belief that god abhorred homosexuals and admitted that all adulterers should be stoned. Would you believe that the indoctrination was harmful? My children did not suffer those extremes but they did come home with tales of Christ that were taught as certainties. As an atheist I did not try not to give an alternative view point because at their young age I did not want them suffering conflict . Equally, If your child came home cursing god and Jesus would you feel the teachers had abused their position and feel the need to correct them? Buddhism, Judaism,Islam, Christianity, Hinduism can not be taught at schools with the intention of impressing the pupil with any dogmatic beliefs.

1) If I were able to afford a boarding school I would make sure what it teaches before I sent them there. 2) I never heard of such extremes you describe in your first sentence, where did this happen? Where did you send your children to school? Did you not check it out? I did not like all things about church when I was growing up, but never experienced the extremes 3 you describe. 3) My children went to a Christian preschool and never had such extreme experiences. I sent them to a public school starting 1st grade-12th. The answer to your question is take your kids out of schools, churches, or any other organizations you don't agree with. Then, let other people make their own decision just like you exercised. Xris, all the world problems do not center around any one organization. People perpetrate evil, and can be found in all things just like good.

I did say my children did not suffer those extremes. When the only primary schools in your area are church schools what alternative have we? Would you like the only choice for your children to be proactively atheist. Religious parents do not quite understand the injustice of a system that actively encourages religous indoctrination in church schools. Schools that are paid for from all our taxes.Rightly or wrongly I wanted my children to be brought up with to be as open minded about religion as any other subject but the system does not always give parents that opportunity.

Xris wrote:I did say my children did not suffer those extremes. When the only primary schools in your area are church schools what alternative have we? Would you like the only choice for your children to be proactively atheist. Religious parents do not quite understand the injustice of a system that actively encourages religous indoctrination in church schools. Schools that are paid for from all our taxes.Rightly or wrongly I wanted my children to be brought up with to be as open minded about religion as any other subject but the system does not always give parents that opportunity.

I would move or home school. If that was not feasible, I would keep close watch on what my children were taught and teach them my version of truth. I had to do this even though my children went to public school. We had many discussions about what was being taught, many things that I disagreed with and had to reteach my children - then later in their life they developed their own belief systems. We still discuss right and wrong of society, religion etc..

Misty wrote:

I would move or home school. If that was not feasible, I would keep close watch on what my children were taught and teach them my version of truth. I had to do this even though my children went to public school. We had many discussions about what was being taught, many things that I disagreed with and had to reteach my children - then later in their life they developed their own belief systems. We still discuss right and wrong of society, religion etc..

But as I have told you with limited resources and an inability to move many are forced to attend a school that may not be their natural choice. No school should teach religion at an early age as dogmatically as these schools do. If I taught anything from an early age it was empathy and respect. Religion was the last subject I had any intentions of teaching them.

Xris wrote:
But as I have told you with limited resources and an inability to move many are forced to attend a school that may not be their natural choice. No school should teach religion at an early age as dogmatically as these schools do. If I taught anything from an early age it was empathy and respect. Religion was the last subject I had any intentions of teaching them.

You describe most people as they live where they can get work, thereby use the school available in their school district. After my kids went to a preschool of my choice that I paid for, they went to a public school, not my choice. If you are speaking about parochial schools that one pays to go to, they have aright to teach what they want in accordance with the particular church running the school. Parents generally have the most influence on young children so one can counter any teaching. Children also usually take on the parental attitudes and worries the parents display. In the situation you speak of one can bone up on the curriculum to counter what is offensive. Kid's are smart and if something does not worry or seem important to their parents will most likely go in one ear and out the other. If the school is a public school then one has a right to complain and demand change. Otherwise, buck up, or start your own school to your personal liking.

Misty wrote:

You describe most people as they live where they can get work, thereby use the school available in their school district. After my kids went to a preschool of my choice that I paid for, they went to a public school, not my choice. If you are speaking about parochial schools that one pays to go to, they have aright to teach what they want in accordance with the particular church running the school. Parents generally have the most influence on young children so one can counter any teaching. Children also usually take on the parental attitudes and worries the parents display. In the situation you speak of one can bone up on the curriculum to counter what is offensive. Kid's are smart and if something does not worry or seem important to their parents will most likely go in one ear and out the other. If the school is a public school then one has a right to complain and demand change. Otherwise, buck up, or start your own school to your personal liking.

Publicly funded primary church schools are predominant in most areas. To avoid them is nigh impossible. I am working class, I was working ten to twelve hours a day, I had little time to consider changing the structure of the educational system in my area. In this day and age it is abusive to educate the certainty of any faith in publicly funded primary school.

To Xris: It's a bummer that you can't find schools to your liking. However, accusing the schools of "child abuse" because they teach what they think is correct (instead of what you think is correct) is ridiculous. Who funds the school is irrelevant to the question of whether the school's teaching techniques are "abusive", although, of course, it's reasonable to argue about what publicly-funded schools should teach.

It is reasonable to argue that the schools are "abusing" public funds, but not that they are abusing children.

Ecurb wrote:To Xris: It's a bummer that you can't find schools to your liking. However, accusing the schools of "child abuse" because they teach what they think is correct (instead of what you think is correct) is ridiculous. Who funds the school is irrelevant to the question of whether the school's teaching techniques are "abusive", although, of course, it's reasonable to argue about what publicly-funded schools should teach.

It is reasonable to argue that the schools are "abusing" public funds, but not that they are abusing children.

So why are they abusing public funds? It is relevant that the general public contribute to system that is teaching dogmatic religion to minors. It is abusive to instill in young minds a belief in an unproven god with all the authority those teachers are allowed.

It is not "abusive" to teach children about God. Xris, your "instill in young minds a belief in an unproven god" makes it sound like some sort of surgical procedure. Yes, lobotomizing children so that they will believe in God is abusive; teaching them about God is not. In fact, it is only in the past 50 years that anyone would have considered NOT teaching children about God. Were all of our grandparents "abused children"?

I don't know what edcuation funding is like in Cornwall. Here in the U.S., many public schools in Fundamentalist regions try to promote cirricula that teach "creationism" and avoid Darwinian evolution. Although the issue is still controversial, in general, egregious attempts at this are declared unconstitutional by the Courts. It's reasonable to argue that the government is "abusing" public funds ANY time it spends money on something you wish they wouldn't spend money on.

Xris wrote:

Publicly funded primary church schools are predominant in most areas. To avoid them is nigh impossible. I am working class, I was working ten to twelve hours a day, I had little time to consider changing the structure of the educational system in my area. In this day and age it is abusive to educate the certainty of any faith in publicly funded primary school.

Our church schools are privately funded. But in your case - did your spouse work? Could your spouse have overseen the school situation? Did your kids end up religious or like you? What have you done to remedy the situations since your kids have grown up? Are you actively trying to change things now? If so, what?

Ecurb wrote:It is not "abusive" to teach children about God. Xris, your "instill in young minds a belief in an unproven god" makes it sound like some sort of surgical procedure. Yes, lobotomizing children so that they will believe in God is abusive; teaching them about God is not. In fact, it is only in the past 50 years that anyone would have considered NOT teaching children about God. Were all of our grandparents "abused children"?

I don't know what edcuation funding is like in Cornwall. Here in the U.S., many public schools in Fundamentalist regions try to promote cirricula that teach "creationism" and avoid Darwinian evolution. Although the issue is still controversial, in general, egregious attempts at this are declared unconstitutional by the Courts. It's reasonable to argue that the government is "abusing" public funds ANY time it spends money on something you wish they wouldn't spend money on.

I always feel very sorry when I hear about the American Constitution being scorned as described in the quotation above.

**********************************

Misty, one good thing about C of E primary schools is that the C of E is usually liberal in its interpretation of religious education , to the extent that good atheist parents will fairly easily keep open the minds of their children. I am much more concerned about such secondary schools as are funded and influenced by fundamentalist Christians.

Manacled minds

Belinda wrote:
I always feel very sorry when I hear about the American Constitution being scorned as described in the quotation above.

Why would you possibly think I was scorning the Constitution when, in fact, I was praising it? In fact, I was agreeing with Xris (Surprise! Surprise!) that teaching religion with public funds is an abuse of public funding, and showing how it is disallowed here in the States.

I will say this -- Americans who revere the Constitution as infallible -- like Fundamentalists who revere the scriptures as infallible -- are dogmatic.

Ecurb wrote:
Why would you possibly think I was scorning the Constitution when, in fact, I was praising it? In fact, I was agreeing with Xris (Surprise! Surprise!) that teaching religion with public funds is an abuse of public funding, and showing how it is disallowed here in the States.

I will say this -- Americans who revere the Constitution as infallible -- like Fundamentalists who revere the scriptures as infallible -- are dogmatic.

Hello Ecrub,

I agree, and add 'people' in general, infallible atheists, and revered philosophers to the above statement.