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

[Belinda]

Ecurb wrote:

One more point for Belinda: I've made this perfectly clear (so I'm not sure why you don't understand) but there's a difference between CHOOSING not to send a child to Sunday School (as I did), and not being ALLOWED to send your child to Sunday School (as Xris advocates in writing). One is a free choice, the other censorship, totalitarianism, and the moral equivalent of book burning.

I agree, because parents however silly they be have to have some rights about what they expose their children to. Sunday schools cannot be as bad as cutting off bits of live babies, which can never be replaced.Unlike forcing Sunday school attendance on kids, cutting off bits from live babies should be outlawed and I regret that German babies as from today can legally be mutilated by Muslims and Jews.

[Xris]

You have stated throughout this thread that "indoctrinating" children with religious beliefs constitutes "child abuse". Now you say that you "never said a parent should be stopped from sending their child to Sunday school."

Does this mean that you don't think child abuse should be outlawed?

I am not misquoting you. I have cut and pasted all of the quotes I've used. You have hedged and said that you really meant that publicly funded schools should not be allowed to teach religion. However, IF teaching religion to young children constitutes "child abuse", you are logically left with only two possible positions: 1) Sunday school should be outlawed; or 2) Child abuse should not be illegal. There are no other possibilities.

Why is this unclear? Either teaching religion to the young is child abuse, in which case it should be outlawed, or it is not child abuse, in which case it should not be outlawed (although it is still reasonable to think publicly funded schools should not do it).

In a perfect world we would all treat our children with respect and encourage freedom of thought but we and the world are far from perfect. Of course I would like parents to give children the opportunity to grow without prejudice but I am a realist. The first step would be to stop all publically funded schools from abusing their pupils, the next would be to encourage parents from abusing their children. There are degrees of abuse that society will tolerate and accept. Hitting a child, (spare the rod, ruin the child)was at one time acceptable. I am sorry if I am twenty years ahead of my time but I expect you will catch up, one day.

[Maldon007]

Hitting a child, at least in the rear, is still acceptable (at least legally)... I think it was spare the rod, spoil the child though.


I'm sure there are religious people who think teaching kids an anti-theist view is abuse... So why not the other way around?

[Ecurb]

In a perfect world we would all treat our children with respect and encourage freedom of thought but we and the world are far from perfect. Of course I would like parents to give children the opportunity to grow without prejudice but I am a realist. The first step would be to stop all publically funded schools from abusing their pupils, the next would be to encourage parents from abusing their children. There are degrees of abuse that society will tolerate and accept. Hitting a child, (spare the rod, ruin the child)was at one time acceptable. I am sorry if I am twenty years ahead of my time but I expect you will catch up, one day.

You're not alone, Xris. You have (among others) Stalin and Mao for company. Like you, they believed parents who taught their children about religion were abusive and "counter-revolutionary". Isn't such tyranny from the 20th Century, though. I'm not sure you're "ahead of (your) time". You are simply trotting out the same fearful, close-minded tyranny that was popular 60 and 70 years ago.

Who gets to decide what teachings are "prejudiced"? The Central Committee?

[Maldon007]

Aren't there entities in place now, that decide what is best to teach (public school wise, US & elsewhere)? They probably already take into consideration what may prejudice a kid... but to have NO prejudice is stupid. You would walk around like a dumbass all day, not knowing anything, becasue everything is yet to be judged. I learned as a kid that pretty much all dirt tastes bad. Without this prejudice, as a fat & hungry adult, I would be checking any new dirt I saw, to see if it was tasty... I might try walking infront of a moving car, why not, I can't really pre judge what will happen, many people have survived such encounters with nary a scrath.

[Xris]

You're not alone, Xris. You have (among others) Stalin and Mao for company. Like you, they believed parents who taught their children about religion were abusive and "counter-revolutionary". Isn't such tyranny from the 20th Century, though. I'm not sure you're "ahead of (your) time". You are simply trotting out the same fearful, close-minded tyranny that was popular 60 and 70 years ago.

Who gets to decide what teachings are "prejudiced"? The Central Committee?

But they made the mistake of replacing one dogmatic system with another. To try and insinuate I would encourage the education of an alternative dogma with another is simply propaganda.

[Rederic]

I'm sure there are religious people who think teaching kids an anti-theist view is abuse... So why not the other way around?

This is the whole point. If you don't teach children theism then there's no need to teach anti-theism. I don't know if it's even possible to teach atheism. I don't know any atheists under the age of 18. It seems to be something that comes to some people as they mature.

[Maldon007]

Eh, I was at least agnostic at 14ish, even with a religious upbringing, or maybe partly because of it. I may have believed in god for a greater time, if it had not been pushed so hard, to the point it looked stupid & I fought it. Hell, I believed in santa till like 8 or 9 or something!

Religion is just part of society, maybe not where you are specifically, but most places. Any given kid, with no direct religious teaching, may still understand that there is a god. There must be, look at all the churches, and the writting on the money (us), patriotic songs, even standard expressions for god's sake.

[Rederic]

may still understand that there is a god.

You mean "might be a God"

I just thank God I'm not religious!

[Maldon007]

I was refering to their understanding, not to reality.

[Xris]

Eh, I was at least agnostic at 14ish, even with a religious upbringing, or maybe partly because of it. I may have believed in god for a greater time, if it had not been pushed so hard, to the point it looked stupid & I fought it. Hell, I believed in santa till like 8 or 9 or something!

Religion is just part of society, maybe not where you are specifically, but most places. Any given kid, with no direct religious teaching, may still understand that there is a god. There must be, look at all the churches, and the writting on the money (us), patriotic songs, even standard expressions for god's sake.

Some people overcome cancer but then a lot of people die of it but I would never suggest you take that chance if you could avoid it.

[Maldon007]

Religion, like cancer, has less to do with your choices & more to do with your circumstances. Which was my point (to rederic), it is everywhere, to be sure a kid did not "learn" there is a god, teaching anti-theism would be required.

[Rederic]

it is everywhere, to be sure a kid did not "learn" there is a god, teaching anti-theism would be required.

You misunderstand me. I don't mind parents teaching their own children about God, whether it be christian or any other, I also know that religion is all around us & unavoidable. What I'm against is religion being taught as fact in our state schools.

[Maldon007]

I think I understood that, and agree... I just meant it might be likely that any given kid may end up with an understanding that god exists, unless taught otherwise. I think we probably agree that either teaching, "is a god" or "is no god" is best done by parrents/private concerns.

[Gene16180]

As a child I was sent to Hebrew school. One year later I had become an orthodox, fundamentalist, bible quoting 7 year old. Luckily, my caustic reprimands over sabbath violations and other drivel soon became overbearing and my family decided to send me to public school. Of course my religiosity was not authentic, I had no clue what any of it meant and believed it for the same reasons that I believed in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. For important evolutionary reasons, children are extremely gullible and will easily adopt the most absurd beliefs from the surrounding adults. I was lucky to escape in time for I feel a few more years and those beliefs would have become interwoven into the very fabric of my reality. You can find sobering accounts of such people, who even after decades of atheism still cannot overcome their fear of hell, god, etc. I think religious leaders know full well the importance of a childhood “education”. They realize that too much free thought (aka blasphemy) is inimical to the transmission of religion and can undermine its very foundations. Why not teach children how to think, wait till they're old enough to seriously engage the issue and give them the freedom to make up their own minds? I would much rather have my children become religious of their own volition then to blindly inherit my atheism.