Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
| Could exposing a very young child to religion be considered a form of child abuse? maybe spiritual or mental abuse? |
| yes |
|
58% |
[ 10 ] |
| no |
|
23% |
[ 4 ] |
| maybe |
|
17% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
Meleagar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 376
|
Post: #76  Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:16 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
OTavern#66
I haven't proved my conclusion but have offered a hunan situation as an illustration of the point of view that no child should be bullied into accepting some religious belief system if that belief sytem damages the child. |
Once again, you only offer vague, invective-laden phrases, assertion, anecdote and no logical argument. You're using the term "bullied" only upon that which you disagree, when I've already shown that the nature of the parent-child relationship necessitates the forcing of views on children. It's inevitable that one's views and perspectives are going to be implanted on one's child.
Further, you have no data, science, or argument about what "damages" means, other than to just apply it to whatever beliefs you disagree with. Your argument is nothing more than a negative characterization, by use of termiinology, of those who teach their children things you disagree with.
You've offered no studies, no logical inference, and no rebuttal to the points raised in contradiction to your bald assertions and negative characterizations.
| Quote: |
| It is true that individual belief systems can be unjust and unfair. |
By what standard?
| Quote: |
| Belief systems are I believe, idols and are akin to the graven images that the old Israelites under their One God were so opposed to. |
And so you are advocating that your belief system about how beliefs should, and should not be implemented or adhered to, be followed, and the only way you differentiate your beliefs from that of others is by the use of negative characterization you haven't even bothered to warrant with any actual evidence.
| Quote: |
| The rights of the individual don't extend to the individual's forcing his belief system upon others. |
But, I guess it's alright for a group (the state) to force its views on all individuals?
Again, you simply refuse to address the fact that in the parent-child relationship, this forcing of beliefs is unavoidable; one forces their beliefs on their child every second they are around their child, by what they say, how they inflect, facial expressions, habits, choice of viewing and reading material, daily routine, how one answers questions and simply conducts themselves; the child is forced to into this beliefs because until they can leave or have the mental faculties to make their own decisions, there is simply nothing that can be done about it
| Quote: |
| I am not calling for revolution only the quiet evolution of values that puts human rights, and not ideologies into the lead when considering social control. |
You want people to adopt your particular perspective of human rights, and what that means, and how the should be considered and enforced and taught, at the expense of what others believe is the proper model of human rights.
| Quote: |
| I am glad that you don't agree with forcing what I and many others regard as medieval superstition upon other families. |
That's not what I said. Try reading it again. Your use of the term "forcing" and "medieval superstition" as a negative characterization technique to emotionally manipulate others belies the hypocrisy of your argument.
| Quote: |
| Some beliefs that are uttered are rightly criminalised. For instance an uttered belief that the Holocaust never happened is criminal in Europe and I guess in the USA too.The British National Party has had to revise its constitution on pain of being criminal.Rightly so I believe. |
No, America has no such law. We still believe in freedom of speech and beliefs. I see you are fully in support of the criminalization of beliefs; you are advocating a form of thought control. How hypocritical; you rant against forciing children to believe certain things, then you advocate and agree with laws that force beliefs you agree with on everyone.
You have no argument or evidence, you're just using rhetoric to advocate for thought-control and criminalization of beliefs you disagree with.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 739
|
| Post: #77 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I think I will not return to this thread, because of the repeated absurd accusation of trying to use the law and law enforces to prevent freedom of thought and speech. Attacking people with such an accusation is a big turn off, when we are not discussing law, but the reality of what is harmful and what is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 368
|
| Post: #78 Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
| I think I will not return to this thread, because of the repeated absurd accusation of trying to use the law and law enforces to prevent freedom of thought and speech. Attacking people with such an accusation is a big turn off, when we are not discussing law, but the reality of what is harmful and what is not. |
A: Forcing a child to believe false ideas is wrong,
O: How do you know if an idea is false?
A: An idea is false if it has not been proven scientifically.
O: So telling my child that I love them has not been proven scientifically so I guess that would be false.
A: Well you are not forcing them to believe you.
O: No but I guess by taking care of their needs since they were born is "setting them up" to believe something that has not been scientifically proven, nor likely ever to be. I haven't given them the opportunity to think otherwise.
A: We could do a brain scan to assess your feelings about your child and therefore prove it.
O: That is not what I mean. My feelings about my child are very mixed sometimes I feel very affectionate, sometimes angry with them and sometimes I just don't enjoy their company. However, I do and always will care for their well-being and always will do everything in my power to help them become the best they can be. In fact you might call my love for them supernatural because it has nothing to do with my feelings about their present state. It is more about willing and hoping which are more about something that does not now exist, but is about their future.
How would you measure that? It really isn't about cause and effect. It is about something that does not exist yet.
A: Well if It isn't about existing cause and effect processes, it cannot be part of the natural order.
O: Nothing causes me to be concerned about their welfare. I choose to care even when I feel I've had it and there is every reason to stop caring. So it must be supernatural then? I must be engraining a belief in the supernatural, since my actions do not allow them much choice to believe that I don't. There is something else, as well. My child trusts my love for them. Whether or not that trust is warranted is yet to be proven, since trust is about their belief in me and how I will remain loving and supportive in the future. That certainly can't be proven either. I must be a child abuser then, teachng my child to believe thIngs about me that are not in the natural order and can't be proven.
A. We really shouldn't raise children to believe in fairy tales or have false notions about us.
O. Trust in other human beings must be one of those superstitions that will slowly disappear since it is so unsupporttable by science. I guess I should teach them that human beings generally let each other down, hurt each other, can't be trusted and are very likely to try to take advantage of them. That love and concern for others is superstitious since it probably will be proven unwarranted at some point in their lives.
A. Those teachings are quite verifiable and definitely part of the causal chain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2812
|
| Post: #79 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Meleagar wrote: |
| Belinda wrote: |
OTavern#66
I haven't proved my conclusion but have offered a hunan situation as an illustration of the point of view that no child should be bullied into accepting some religious belief system if that belief sytem damages the child. |
Once again, you only offer vague, invective-laden phrases, assertion, anecdote and no logical argument. You're using the term "bullied" only upon that which you disagree, when I've already shown that the nature of the parent-child relationship necessitates the forcing of views on children. It's inevitable that one's views and perspectives are going to be implanted on one's child.
Further, you have no data, science, or argument about what "damages" means, other than to just apply it to whatever beliefs you disagree with. Your argument is nothing more than a negative characterization, by use of termiinology, of those who teach their children things you disagree with.
You've offered no studies, no logical inference, and no rebuttal to the points raised in contradiction to your bald assertions and negative characterizations.
| Quote: |
| It is true that individual belief systems can be unjust and unfair. |
By what standard?
| Quote: |
| Belief systems are I believe, idols and are akin to the graven images that the old Israelites under their One God were so opposed to. |
And so you are advocating that your belief system about how beliefs should, and should not be implemented or adhered to, be followed, and the only way you differentiate your beliefs from that of others is by the use of negative characterization you haven't even bothered to warrant with any actual evidence.
| Quote: |
| The rights of the individual don't extend to the individual's forcing his belief system upon others. |
But, I guess it's alright for a group (the state) to force its views on all individuals?
Again, you simply refuse to address the fact that in the parent-child relationship, this forcing of beliefs is unavoidable; one forces their beliefs on their child every second they are around their child, by what they say, how they inflect, facial expressions, habits, choice of viewing and reading material, daily routine, how one answers questions and simply conducts themselves; the child is forced to into this beliefs because until they can leave or have the mental faculties to make their own decisions, there is simply nothing that can be done about it
| Quote: |
| I am not calling for revolution only the quiet evolution of values that puts human rights, and not ideologies into the lead when considering social control. |
You want people to adopt your particular perspective of human rights, and what that means, and how the should be considered and enforced and taught, at the expense of what others believe is the proper model of human rights.
| Quote: |
| I am glad that you don't agree with forcing what I and many others regard as medieval superstition upon other families. |
That's not what I said. Try reading it again. Your use of the term "forcing" and "medieval superstition" as a negative characterization technique to emotionally manipulate others belies the hypocrisy of your argument.
| Quote: |
| Some beliefs that are uttered are rightly criminalised. For instance an uttered belief that the Holocaust never happened is criminal in Europe and I guess in the USA too.The British National Party has had to revise its constitution on pain of being criminal.Rightly so I believe. |
No, America has no such law. We still believe in freedom of speech and beliefs. I see you are fully in support of the criminalization of beliefs; you are advocating a form of thought control. How hypocritical; you rant against forciing children to believe certain things, then you advocate and agree with laws that force beliefs you agree with on everyone.
You have no argument or evidence, you're just using rhetoric to advocate for thought-control and criminalization of beliefs you disagree with. |
I said that I had not proved my conclusion. Please pay more attention to what i do write. I am usually very careful to write what I mean and I mean to be as objective as I can, unless I make it clear by my language that I am expressing feelings. I said 'bullied' as a common translation for mental 'indoctrination'.Manacles are not always physical things.
Of course I could offer more and more examples, and respected theories too about how children suffered and still suffer from indorinated beliefs. The unit of value that I stand by and to which I intend to remain loyal is individuals' human rights.Individuals are real, they aren't ideologies of any sort. I believe that there is a basic right of every individual to be educated with the aim of making that individual independent of any parental prejudices about religious or political ideologies .
I believe that a good parent will try to inculcate respect for others' welfare together with trying to rear someone to be a fully independent adult.This leaves religous instruction firmly out of the picture. It is possible that some school curriculums may include comparative religion as anthropology or history when the child is ready for it, but this study is a long way from religious instruction.
The dichotomy that matters to human rights is the dichotomy that often exists between the individual's personal welfare and some religious or political ideology.
| Quote: |
| You've offered no studies, no logical inference, and no rebuttal to the points raised in contradiction to your bald assertions and negative characterizations. |
A point of order. Sweeping characterisations of another poster's beliefs or opinions won't further the conversation. To do so you really have to mention particular items and thrash these out separately.
| Quote: |
| You want people to adopt your particular perspective of human rights, and what that means, and how the should be considered and enforced and taught, at the expense of what others believe is the proper model of human rights. |
I do indeed. So do The United Nations and all signatories to The United Nations Convention on Human Rights.
According to wikipedia you are right about there being no law against Holocaust denial in the USA. I was surprised to read no law against it here in the UK either. I stand corrected.
Main article: Laws against Holocaust denial
Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland. Slovakia made Holocaust denial a crime in late 2001 but repealed the legislation in May 2005. Spain decriminalized Holocaust denial in October 2007.[141] Italy rejected a draft Holocaust denial law proposing a prison sentence of up to four years in 2007, the Netherlands rejected a draft law proposing a maximum sentence of one year in 2006 and before this the United Kingdom twice rejected a Holocaust denial law. Denmark and Sweden also have rejected Holocaust denial legislation.[142]
[edit] Other genocide denials
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meleagar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 376
|
| Post: #80 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda,
I didn't say you had proven anything; I said you've offered nor logical argument, nor any evidence, to support your rhetoric, nor have you addressed any counter-argument or rebuttal. You are relying entirely upon convenient anecdoote and and negative characterizations and terminology to promote via emotional manipulation the rather fascist idea that we should criminalize all beliefs sufficiently outside of your "norm".
I don't think anything more need be said on the matter.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2812
|
| Post: #81 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
No, I said that certain beliefs when uttered should be criminalised. The Holocaust is so dreadful that I doubt if any satirist,or any other person except incipient fascists would dare to deny it.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meleagar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 376
|
| Post: #82 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| No, I said that certain beliefs when uttered should be criminalised. The Holocaust is so dreadful that I doubt if any satirist,or any other person except incipient fascists would dare to deny it. |
"You have the right to hold any belief you wish, but if you express that belief in any way, shape or form, it's a criminal act."
Now, I ask other observers here: would a person with free will utter such a nonsensical equivocation with a straight face?
It's rather obvious that many humans do not have free will.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/
Last edited by Meleagar on Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 368
|
| Post: #83 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| No, I said that certain beliefs when uttered should be criminalised. The Holocaust is so dreadful that I doubt if any satirist,or any other person except incipient fascists would dare to deny it. |
I don't think you understand what you are advocating here. If it is criminal to utter statements that question the veracity of beliefs about the Holocaust, then it is criminal to investigate the reality of the event at all. The Holocaust is not a simple concept like 1+1 = 2, it is a complex issue involving many individuals, motives, ideologies and ethical implications. One may deny certain aspects and accept others as part of normal scholarly investigation. Implicit in scholarly debate is the principle of falsifiability. Investigation can only "prove" fully certain claims if the opposite claim has been raised and proven false. Claims of fact must stand up to counter claims in order to be found true beyond doubt. Criminalizing doubt seems to put the process of investigation under the auspices of government approval.
This is interesting because the medieval Inquisitions implemented a similar perspective on dissent as you are now advocating. Fortunately the RC Church realized the inherent wrong in this and has revised how it goes about business. Perhaps you can learn a lesson from this historical incident.
The ability to doubt and question means that students new to the "investigation" are free to raise queries and suspicion and have these overturned by strong evidence. The very fact these questions can be raised brings about the finding of strong evidence. Strong evidence will stand up to all uncertainties and questions.
What you seem to be advocating is that it is criminal to raise questions about the Holocaust and that it rightly should be. This is effectively instituting totalitarian authoritarianism, that is, trusting totally in the "authority" of previous investigators to have established with no possibility of doubt the truth of a matter. Instituting such a law effectively instates the right of governments to indoctrinate its citizens to believe without right to question what it has established as "true." This is political absolutism. You would argue against this form of indoctrination where a religious institution is involved.
In fact the RC Church explicitly states that individuals must freely accept and cannot be coerced into holding beliefs. So even the RC Church does not go as far as you do in pressing its "authority" in certain matters.
It seems very inconsistent of you to push for total authority of government when you claim to abhor authoritarianism of any kind. Peculiar that.
One of the countries not on your list was Canada. It is interesting that Canada does not regard as criminal the questioning of facts surrounding the Holocaust, but it does criminalize utterances aimed at fomenting hatred against identifiable groups. In Canada, merely questioning the Holocaust is not against the law, but doing so as a means of targeting or demeaning identifiable cultures or groups is. This is a much more reasonable law than criminalizing the mere utterance of doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1843
|
| Post: #84 Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It seems the goal of the political correctness movement is to deny people the right to ignore others of and by their own volition.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
Last edited by Juice on Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2812
|
| Post: #85 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| You have the right to hold any belief you wish, but if you express that belief in any way, shape or form, it's a criminal act." |
I do not endorse this. The criminalisation of Holocaust denial was undertaken after much deliberation. It is important to any future generations that evils are remembered so that we can pray not to repeat them. The Holocaust stands alone as a reminder of what civilised people can become when they stand by and do nothing to prevent or stop evil.
If I went along with your stupid suggestion I would hardly be a member of a philosophy group.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OTavern
Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 368
|
| Post: #86 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You have the right to hold any belief you wish, but if you express that belief in any way, shape or form, it's a criminal act." |
I do not endorse this. The criminalisation of Holocaust denial was undertaken after much deliberation. It is important to any future generations that evils are remembered so that we can pray not to repeat them. The Holocaust stands alone as a reminder of what civilised people can become when they stand by and do nothing to prevent or stop evil.
If I went along with your stupid suggestion I would hardly be a member of a philosophy group. |
Actually, you do logically endorse that statement, whether you wish to accept it or not. Just plug-in the belief about the Holocaust and it is consistent with what you said about criminalizing utterances.
You have the right to hold any belief you wish (such as denying the Holocaust ever occurred), but if you express that belief in any way, shape or form, it's a criminal act."
You owe Meleagar an apology. His suggestion was not stupid. I'll let you infer the rest of what that entails. We all make mustakes. We still love you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JPhillips
Joined: 22 Oct 2009
Posts: 207
|
| Post: #87 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:25 pm Post subject: Child Abuse |
|
|
|
No more so than exposing a child to Darwinism. Neither religion nor Darwinism have been scientifically proven. Since Adolf Hitler and Mussolini were both Darwinists, it is hard to deny that the teachings of Darwinism are harmless. Therefore I ask, should the teaching of Darwinism be considered child abuse?
You can't make everything with which you don't agree or don't like illegal. Not in this country, not yet, anyway. This might be possible in a Communist, atheist nation where there is no freedom of speech and individual thinking that goes against the State is shunned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 739
|
| Post: #88 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Amazing, how much proof does Darwinism require for it to be accepted as valid? All creatures are dependent on their environment. There is an interaction between creatures and the environment in which they find themselves. Failure to accept this concept is the main cause of human destruction of life on earth. The consequences of this failure are so serious, it increases the passion involved in these arguments, and makes them unpleasant.
The point of democracy is determining truth, and than governing ourselves with truth. Explaining life with superstitious beliefs is dangerous to individuals and to the whole world. We want to base our laws on truth, because that is the best way to preserve life on this planet and have good relationships. Unlike religion, democracy is always searching for truth. Science is very important to democracy, and science gives us far more reason to believe in evolution than to believe in demons. I am shocked that we are even having this disagreement.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Meleagar
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 376
|
| Post: #89 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
| Amazing, how much proof does Darwinism require for it to be accepted as valid? All creatures are dependent on their environment. There is an interaction between creatures and the environment in which they find themselves. |
I'm not sure you and others are on the same page about what "Darwinism" means. Philosophically, it's generally taken as a subset of materialism, that humans are nothing more than the products of molecular interactions - physics and biology, material cause and effect. This is substantially different than just the idea that the environment is an interdependent system of living organisms and resources.
That we live in such an environment is one thing; that such an environment has come about by nothing more than chance and natural law is quite another; the latter is an ideological assertion much like a religion, and has no place in the schoolroom outside of a comparative philosophy or religion class.
| Quote: |
| Failure to accept this concept is the main cause of human destruction of life on earth. The consequences of this failure are so serious, it increases the passion involved in these arguments, and makes them unpleasant. |
Most life on Earth (99.9%?) went extinct before man even arrived on the scene; if Darwinism is true, then humans are doing nothing other than what natural forces have programmed humans to do. I always fail to see how materialistic Darwinists can blame humans for doing what nature programmed them to do.
| Quote: |
| The point of democracy is determining truth, and than governing ourselves with truth. |
Not really. The point of democracy is for people to rule themselves, as much as possible. Truth doesn't really have much to do with it.
| Quote: |
| Explaining life with superstitious beliefs is dangerous to individuals and to the whole world. |
So you and others keep asserting; however, you adamantly refuse to back up your assertions with any facts, evidence, or logical argument. Asserting it over and over doesn't make an argument; that's just ideological rhetoric.
| Quote: |
| We want to base our laws on truth, because that is the best way to preserve life on this planet and have good relationships. |
Show me the evidence. First, tell me what truth is, then show me the evidence that what you call "truth" produces the "best" results. Of course, you'll also have to show me your methodology for determining what "best" means, and why anyone should adopt your particular vision of what is "best" for everyone.
| Quote: |
| Unlike religion, democracy is always searching for truth. |
Democracy has never been about "searching for truth"; religion is often about "searching for truth". In fact, most democracies are established via religious truths, beginning with the assertion that humans have certain inalienable rights to freedom and self-governance endowed upon them by their creator.
| Quote: |
| Science is very important to democracy, and science gives us far more reason to believe in evolution than to believe in demons. I am shocked that we are even having this disagreement. |
There is no science whatsoever that shows that demons do not exist; there is no science anywhere that shows that evolution is capable of generating the diversity of life we see around us without intelligent guidance.
In the hands of those that would dictate what truth is, and what truths can be taught and expressed, science becomes nothing more than a secular Inquisition.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Palimere
Joined: 01 Dec 2009
Posts: 6
|
| Post: #90 Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Hey everybody:
Maybe we should try getting back on topic here? I believe the intended topic for this forum was about teaching your children about religion, and is that abuse. Instead, everyone seems to want to talk about their own beliefs on the Holocaust. If you want to talk about the Holocaust, make a separate forum for it.
On the original topic:
No, teaching your child religion is not abuse. There is no scientific or real, hard evidence that teaching a specific religion to your child is harmful to them. It becomes harmful when that religion is either inherently harmful (eg. David Karesh), or when the interpretation of that religion causes the child to come into conflict with the morality that is instilled in them. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong (except special cases of psychosis or sociopathy). When the religion taught to that child goes against what that child knows to be wrong, that child will be confused, and this could lead to a mental rift, much the same as a "split" personality. Take for example the children of many Satanists. Every child knows that death is to be feared; it is part of nature to fear death. However, many sects of Satanism glorify the death of the human body and soul. Thus, the child forms a mental dicotomy. When the Satanist "priest" asks them what they feel about death, they will answer as they are expected to; that death is glory. But when that child is alone with their thoughts, they will fear death all the more, because of that teaching.
In these situations, the religion itself is abusive to the mind of the child. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
