|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 19:36:42 [Permalink]
|
Good call, Kil.
I just read the link to the Dawkins article. In was this issue that made me first think that Dawkins has really gone off the deep end and went from being quite a good biologist who wrote books that were accessible to the layman, to nothing more than a self-appointed pundit for Atheism with a cult of personality.
The article's conclusion: | Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds. |
This suggestion is just idiotic on its face. But let's take it seriously for a moment, just for kicks. If we come to accept the idea that religious beliefs that inspire fear in some children are a greater form of abuse than sexually molesting children, it follows that children raised by parents who believe in hell and teach this to their children should all be removed from those homes, put in foster care, and their parents prosecuted. This is what happens to parents found to be sexually abusing their kids. This is what happens to parents found to be physically abusing their kids.
And heck, why stop at the belief in hell? Let's make a list of any religious belief that have the potential for frightening children, and start rounding up the religious folks. I doubt we'll be able to find enough foster parents, so we better start building the orphanages now.
But back to sensible reality, children are traumatized by many different sort of things, and what will traumatize one kid but not another cannot be predicted. I listened to an episode of "This American Life" once where a man told a story about watching the film "The Shining" when he was a small child and how it contributed to serious sleep problems that followed him into adulthood. Should his Uncle who let him watch the movie be considered a child abuser?
But I suppose my response to the Dawkin's article is a moot point since Judge Bromley seems to be nothing more than a hit and run troll. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/26/2011 19:37:23 |
 |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 07/26/2011 : 19:41:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Judge Bromley circa 1612
...I'm too intellectually weak to muster an argument... |
I think this is possibly correct. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 19:48:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Good call, Kil.
|
Thanks! And I swear I wouldn't have deleted my post if I had seen yours. You probably posted while I was deleting. My post just seemed a bit too grumpy. I felt I could do better.
What I said, essentially, is that Judge Bromley circa 1612 accused us of being posers if we don't happen to agree with Dawkins on all things. The irony of suggesting that a free-thinker must agree with Dawkins on all things, or is only posing as a free-thinker (atheist, agnostic, whatever) was not lost on me.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 19:53:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
If we come to accept the idea that religious beliefs that inspire fear in some children are a greater form of abuse than sexually molesting children, it follows that children raised by parents who believe in hell and teach this to their children should all be removed from those homes, put in foster care, and their parents prosecuted. |
No, this does not follow. Because, as you say:
| ...children are traumatized by many different sort of things, and what will traumatize one kid but not another cannot be predicted. |
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2011 : 20:53:56 [Permalink]
|
I'm not following you, Hawks. The the first statement of mine you quoted, I was trying to point out the absurdity of Dawkins's suggestion that teaching kids that Hell is real is a worse form of what should be labeled "child abuse" than sexual molestation. To accept such a premise would mean either being more lenient on sexual abuse of children or law enforcement coming down on parents and authority figures who teach children that Hell is a real place. And Dawkins doesn't use some fringe, extremist church as his example of "abuse". He cites the Catholic Church - the religion of roughly a quarter of all Americans. How is it even slightly reasonable to go there with the label of "child abuse", a concept and term which has real legal consequences?
My point in saying that different things will traumatize different children and it cannot be predicted was meant to say that some children are going to be disturbed by things they are told, things they see and experience. But few of those experiences will be connected with actual child abuse.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 09:15:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | It's a good thing because it prevents theocracies, not because religion is inherently a good thing or because religious diversity is inherently a good thing. |
It's not just a good thing because it prevents theocracies. It is also good because it protects people's freedom to live as they so choose, based on a variety of beliefs and practices, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. In other words, it also prevents an atheist state from banning religious institutions and violating the freedoms of religious communities, families, and individuals. |
Yes, yes, excuse my shorthand. Still, religion isn't being protected because it's inherently worthwhile, or because a vareity of religions is inherently valuable. Religion is protected because it's a matter of personal conscience, and governmental power over religion should be limited because religion is both pervasive and easily usurped. Faith is extremely dangerous when it is given power. It has destroyed lives, families and entire nations.| Individual activities, including diversity of religious practices, do not need to be encouraged, they are inevitable. That is why such limitations on government power are necessary. |
Again, this misses the point.| Read my post more carefully, I already mentioned sexual abuse along with physical abuse. Changing religion to porn is not an appropriate comparison. One appropriate comparison is changing religion to political affiliation. Is raising a child to unquestioningly accept a political ideology child abuse? And remember, I'm not asking if it is a crappy way to raise kids, I'm asking if it is abuse. |
The difference between abuse and crappy parenting is a matter of degree, not kind.| In other words, the sort of thing the state should take action against? |
This is the red herring again. Without a formal government at all, there would still be situations in which other people would step up and say, "hey, stop abusing your child!"
So there are really two questions here, as I said before. One, does religious indoctrination meet or exceed a social (not legal) standard for abuse. Two, if it does, should it be addressed socially or governmentally?
The social standard must come first. If we make up laws and then adjust our sociality to match them, we're being extremely dumb citizens.| ...But let's consider a lesser degree of interference - perhaps assigning social workers to children to observe and evaluate. What purpose would that serve? The children would still be raised by the parents, who would no doubt view the social workers with contempt. |
How about other people simply express disgust with the parents?| Let's face it, we're not talking about child abuse here. We're talking about religious intolerance, plain and simple. |
I see no reason to tolerate faith. It is diametrically opposed to rationality, and no advance we've made as a people has been its doing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 09:56:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I see no reason to tolerate faith. It is diametrically opposed to rationality, and no advance we've made as a people has been its doing.
|
I suspect that, in daily life, you're reasonably tolerant of the faithful, if not of their faith. I know that there are individuals who actively harass or exclude those of differing beliefs, even when they share relationships in other ways. I think that such extreme sociopaths are rare, however. |
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 10:17:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
I see no reason to tolerate faith. |
Yes. But you are not intolerant of people of faith are you? And if it came up as a constitutional issue, wouldn't you defend their right to be people of faith? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 11:19:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave:| Still, religion isn't being protected because it's inherently worthwhile, or because a vareity of religions is inherently valuable. |
Nobody said it was.
The difference between abuse and crappy parenting is a matter of degree, not kind.
In other words, the sort of thing the state should take action against? |
Like physical and sexual abuse, psychological abuse is a considered form of abuse, both legally and merely socially. For example, cases of extreme bullying. Perhaps the most mild form of bullying is light teasing done in the spirit of friendship, which I don't think anyone would consider abusive or condemn in any way. But even light teasing among friends can be hurtful. On the flip side, such teasing, when taken the right way, can also strengthen friendships. To compare this with religious instruction of children, most religious instruction is not in a way that is meant to frighten children. Most that is meant to frighten is not meant to traumatize or cause psychological/emotional damage. And some religious instruction benefits children, at least in that it exposes the child to a religious point of view, set of beliefs, and practices, which apply to a significant number of people, and this inside view is certainly educational. For instance, even though I ended up being an atheist, my being raised Catholic has given me certain insights into that religious and how it is understood and practiced by Catholics. I do not wish I was raised secular humanist because then I would not have gained that knowledge.
And just as most kids who are bullied some in school learn to cope and move past it unscathed, my exposure to the concept of hell did no true damage to my psyche. In fact I have no memory of ever being afraid of hell. I guess by the time I was old enough to process the concept, I was also old enough to interpret it as not a literal place where people are physically tortured for all of eternity. Other people process it in other ways which protect their psyche, such as compartmentalized thinking, or adopting the belief that Jesus died for the sins of all people, and thus everyone eventually ends up in heaven.
It seems weird to me that we would isolate religious upbringing as a form of abuse. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, whether it is done by some random perve or a priest. Neglect is neglect, whether it is the result of drug addiction or trust in faith healing. And psychological abuse is psychological abuse, whether it is a truly sadistic, perhaps even psychotic bully who relentlessly preys on an individual with the intention of breaking them down until they kill themselves, or a religious cult that ends with the same or similar results. Why single out religion? It seems to me that this whole thread was started with a bias against religion.
| Without a formal government at all, there would still be situations in which other people would step up and say, "hey, stop abusing your child!" |
| How about other people simply express disgust with the parents? |
I have mentioned the harmful consequences of government intervention. Since you brought up social criticism or shunning, I'll bring up the harmful consequences of that. The damage done to children of gay parents has been well documented. There are also whole support groups for the children of interracial couples. At Camp Quest, I've also heard painful stories from atheist children growing up in the south who have suffered discrimination. Consider the new pain we inflict on the child when we "express disgust with their parents."
Socially pressuring someone to treat their kid differently only works if it is likely to result in the parents changing their ways. Does anyone here honestly think that deeply religious people who engage in rigorous indoctrination of their children are going to change their beliefs because they are unpopular? If we accept that religious belief and practice is inevitable for some segments of society (which is part of why we write religious freedom into our laws in the first place) are we not also accepting it as inevitable that religious people will instruct their children in their beliefs. If it is inevitable, doesn't socially regarding them as "child abusers" only make the situation for these children worse?
| I see no reason to tolerate faith. |
You have already stated your reason to tolerate faith. Anyone who doesn't tolerate faith should be in opposition to the US First Ammendment. You might not respect it and you may view it as always doing some harm, however small, but you do seem to tolerate it if only because to not do so would invite more damaging harm. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 12:42:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I was trying to point out the absurdity of Dawkins's suggestion that teaching kids that Hell is real is a worse form of what should be labeled "child abuse" than sexual molestation. |
The way I read Dawkins' essay, he is saying that words can be worse than molestation. Not that they necessarily are. So, given this, it does not follow | that children raised by parents who believe in hell and teach this to their children should all be removed from those homes, put in foster care, and their parents prosecuted. |
(emphasis added) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 12:56:33 [Permalink]
|
| The impression I get with Dawkins is that he doesn't think sexual abuse of children is a big deal, because it happened to him and he turned out ok. |
 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 13:18:02 [Permalink]
|
To Hawks, point taken. But are you suggesting that some parents should have their children forcibly removed for teaching their kids that hell is real? If so, how do we decide which to prosecute and which to leave alone?
Dawkins opened this can of worms when he compared the potential psychological abuse of children through religious indoctrination with sexual abuse. Sexual abuse is rather unique from other forms of abuse of children. If we compare it to neglect, we can see that many incidents of neglect are done accidentally and extremely minor. If we compare it to physical abuse, we can see that many incidents are done with even good intentions by the parents (spanking is currently illegal and considered child abuse in some countries, but in the USA it is still an accepted form of discipline.) But in the case of sexual abuse of children, even the most minor incidents, even incidents which do not end up harming the emotional development of a particular child, get reactions of strong outrage and disgust from the general public. (And to be clear, I'm talking only about the sexual molestation of children by adults or much older teens, not statutory rape that involves consenting teenagers) This is because the perpetrator's intentions are at best frighteningly warped, and at worst menacing and predatory. An adult who has a desire to touch or be touched by a child in an overtly sexual manner has a serious disorder and needs as much help as his or her potential victims need protection from them. But an adult who has particular religious beliefs does not have a disorder. They might be thinking irrationally, but this is common and within the normal and widely accepted parameters of human experience.
My only point in this digression is to point out that sexual abuse is a somewhat unique and profoundly disturbing form of child abuse. And so it irks me that Dawkins or anyone would even suggest that religious indoctrination is worse. I know Dawkins was saying that for some victims, in some cases, the religious indoctrination they received did do more harm than the sexual abuse. I'm not disputing that. But when we set laws and social norms, we have to consider society as a whole and the motivations behind the perpetrators of abuse, not only the individual victims' experiences. There will always be people who as adults, reflect on their upbringing and identify experiences from their childhoods which were damaging. But most of those experiences, even when they are caused by adults, will not be considered "child abuse" because the don't impact most kids that way and because the perpetrators had no ill intentions. Just like there will always be women who feel they were pressured by boyfriends into sex, and they might afterward suffer similar trauma to rape victims, but if the boyfriend was unaware of her feelings, was never told no, and only perceived her as going along with his desires, he is not a rapist. If we extend the definition of "rape" to such incidents, we lessen the seriousness of real rape. And if we extend the definition of "child abuse", we likewise lessen the seriousness of real child abuse. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/27/2011 13:18:35 |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 14:14:32 [Permalink]
|
Everyone has brought up good points about this topic.
I do think you can't compare religious indoctrination and sexual abuse. Sexual abuse affects a child's conception of self and his or her boundaries. It affects a child's ability to trust and to feel safe.
I think neglect is the worse kind of abuse in a lot of ways. YOu can argue that a parent who pushes a certain religious view shows at least that the parent cares about the child.
Unless parents can keep their child away from the world, (does happen in certain cults/extreme religions) they can't really prevent them from thinking on their own when they grow up |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 14:54:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
You have already stated your reason to tolerate faith. Anyone who doesn't tolerate faith should be in opposition to the US First Ammendment. You might not respect it and you may view it as always doing some harm, however small, but you do seem to tolerate it if only because to not do so would invite more damaging harm. |
No, the First Amendment protects people, not ideas. As others have noted, I am tolerant of people's right to hold the most mind-bogglingly stupid ideas, but if they tell me about them, I'm not going to be tolerant of them, I'm going to call those ideas mind-bogglingly stupid and do my best to persuade the other person out of them.
I think we should strive to eliminate faith from the planet, and the idea that faith is a virtue should be one of the most intolerable notions ever, right up there with slavery, racism, NAMBLA and sexism.
People can keep their Sunday morning rituals, funny clothes and pot-luck dinners. They just need to drop their celebrations of irrationality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2011 : 15:07:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
And some religious instruction benefits children, at least in that it exposes the child to a religious point of view, set of beliefs, and practices, which apply to a significant number of people, and this inside view is certainly educational. For instance, even though I ended up being an atheist, my being raised Catholic has given me certain insights into that religious and how it is understood and practiced by Catholics. I do not wish I was raised secular humanist because then I would not have gained that knowledge. |
What I know about Epicopalianism I could have read in a book. No need for me to have experienced it. Heck, there's no need for anyone to have a special insight into drowning by experiencing it to be able to learn a whole lot about it.| And just as most kids who are bullied some in school learn to cope and move past it unscathed, my exposure to the concept of hell did no true damage to my psyche. In fact I have no memory of ever being afraid of hell. I guess by the time I was old enough to process the concept, I was also old enough to interpret it as not a literal place where people are physically tortured for all of eternity. Other people process it in other ways which protect their psyche, such as compartmentalized thinking, or adopting the belief that Jesus died for the sins of all people, and thus everyone eventually ends up in heaven. |
See, it's not even particular bits of dogma which I think are the most damaging. It is, again, faith which I think is the most dangerous part of religion.| It seems weird to me that we would isolate religious upbringing as a form of abuse. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, whether it is done by some random perve or a priest. Neglect is neglect, whether it is the result of drug addiction or trust in faith healing. And psychological abuse is psychological abuse, whether it is a truly sadistic, perhaps even psychotic bully who relentlessly preys on an individual with the intention of breaking them down until they kill themselves, or a religious cult that ends with the same or similar results. Why single out religion? It seems to me that this whole thread was started with a bias against religion. |
If we want to consider religious indoctrination to be psychological abuse, that'd be fine by me. I'm sure there are many different specific subsets of psychological abuse that have names, and "religion" could be one of them. It doesn't have to be either/or.| Socially pressuring someone to treat their kid differently only works if it is likely to result in the parents changing their ways. Does anyone here honestly think that deeply religious people who engage in rigorous indoctrination of their children are going to change their beliefs because they are unpopular? |
Then the only solution is to wait for them all to die. I'd rather look for a more pro-active route.| If we accept that religious belief and practice is inevitable for some segments of society (which is part of why we write religious freedom into our laws in the first place) are we not also accepting it as inevitable that religious people will instruct their children in their beliefs. If it is inevitable, doesn't socially regarding them as "child abusers" only make the situation for these children worse? |
If we accept that the beating of children is inevitable for some segments of society...
It is. Inevitability shouldn't dictate tolerance. It's inevitable that some children will be beaten. It's inevitable that some will be raped. It's inevitable that some will be psychologically bullied. Does socially regarding these people as child beaters, rapists and bullies make the situation for their victims worse?! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Religious indoctrination of children child abuse?
