religious indoctrination= child abuse?

[Shrykull]

What do you think of it, personally I wouldn't want any parent to force a child to undergo anything that they don't really need at all, like a religion, but it sure as hell will be a long time before any legislation gets filed under this definition of child abuse. Christianity could disappear within our lifetime? Not sure about that, think most Christians are mild, don't always attend church every Sunday, etc. I do think it definitely has changed since the early part of the 20th Century, my great great aunt is still alive at 107 and she couldn't marry a guy because he was protestant and she was Catholic.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The majority of Americans are religous; that should give you a good idea of the odds of such a Bill ever being passed.... never mind about the Veto Power of the current "I found God" President.

[Sriad]

I won't speak to the possibility of legislation (vanishingly slim), but one could certainly make a case for it; indoctrination shapes, probably harmfully, a child's view of the world and will retard its (the child's) ability to change its opinion to one that is better.
Mostly this only applies to rediculous fundies tho.

[[BL]Phalanx]

This is very dangerous.... what classifies as blind "indoctrination" and brain-washing, and what classifies as parental guidance? You basically give the state the power to say what teachings are allowed and what aren't, not just the power to say that parents can't treat their kids physically like shit.

Let people raise their children with whatever values they choose to... the kids tend to sort things out and make their own decisions anyways...

[UltraViolence83]

Indoctrination of a child into a belief structure/lifestyle doesn't constitiute child abuse at all. Only if there is physical or psychological harm can someone claim abuse. And the idea of "abuse" gets increasingly subjective with the latter. Sounds like the same shit those "don't yell at your kid because it makes them feel bad" people would say. Parents have the right to raise their child, the state does not. I'm not a big fan of organized religion, but I'll defend its adherents right to rear their child as they see fit, even fundies (unless they brutally beat their kids like the Good Reverend Phelps). I sure as hell wouldn't want someone else tell me how to bring up my fucking offspring, especially the government.

[Uther]

Oh what a spectacular idea. And once the atheist president gets the boot, the fundamentalist will declare ANTI-religious doctrine child abuse.

[Darth Wong]

Some religious doctrines are unquestionably child abuse. Jehovah's Witnesses and their prohibitions on blood transfusions, for example. Also "Christian Science" people. These people have effectively MURDERED their own children on many occasions and been let off the hook because refusal of life-saving medical treatment is OK for some reason if it's your religion

[Sir Sirius]

There are ofcourse religious teachings with less obvious negetive effects. Like catholic style quilt trips about sex (and pleasure in general), not really child abuse, but causes sexual inhibitions and much grief in later life.

[UltraViolence83]

Funny how a lot of people are former Catholics. Appears to me to be more of this type of ex-Christian than any other. Must be the whole uber-organization and orthodoxy of it all not fitting in with the praised rebellion of our modern society.

[Peregrin Toker]

Let people raise their children with whatever values they choose to... the kids tend to sort things out and make their own decisions anyways...

Even if people raise their children with totally twisted norms, and the children decide to follow those twisted values??

Granted, I might be proposing a Worst Case Scenario (TM) but it's not as far-fetched as you might think. It might explain the incident on page 149 of MAUS.

If you've never read MAUS, I'll explain:

It's 1944 in Sosnowiec, Poland. A jew hiding from the authorities, Vladek Spiegelman, is walking camouflaged as a Gentile, but some playing children notice him and run screaming home yelling "HELP! MOMMY! A JEW!"
As "narration", Vladek explains that back then, Polish mothers always frightened unruly children by telling them that the Jews would come and eat them.

[Gil Hamilton]

You can't do that though, since it interferes in the rights of parents to raise their children. It would only cause a massive shitstorm of controversial court cases where children attempt to sue their parents for trying to make them eat broccoli and stuff.

[Queeb Salaron]

First of all, passing a bill like that will never happen in our lifetime. The way I see it, it contradicts the right to freedom of religion. I always thought that being free to practice a religion means you were free to teach (indoctrinate) your children, too. That's part of the parents's Catholic baptismal vows: I swear to raise this child as a Catholic Christian.

That aside, I think that there is a fine line between teaching your child about a certain religion and forcing it upon him. A perfect scenario in my mind would be this: The parents of a child explain in very base terms what Christianity (for example) is. If the child is interested, the parents explain to him that when they believe in God, some Christians choose to go to church on Sundays. Then, instead of toting a child along to church, the parents ask the child if he would like to go to church. Either answer MUST be acceptable to the parents. First of all, it could be that the child just doesn't like going to church. I know I didn't. He could still very well believe in God and Jesus as his Son; he could very well believe and uphold the social guidelines outlined in the Bible. Hell, he could even wish to become a missionary and preach the Word of God on a streetcorner in a city somewhere. But if he doesn't want to go to church, that MUST be ok with the parents.

It could be that they child does not believe in all of the Hocus-Pocus surrounding Christian faith, and therefore chooses not to be Christian. Despite the baptismal vows, the parents must accept this, too. They can try to explain Christianity a little bit better, and if their understanding of Christianity is strong enough they can even contradict some of the more common anti-Christianity claims. But if the child still chooses not to believe, there must not, I repeat MUST NOT, be any kind of forceful persuasion to make that child adapt to a Faith in which he has no faith.

Now, while most people (I would think) could agree with or at least see the logic behind this reasoning, there will never be a law passed or a social revolution implementd to enforce it. Why? Because no one in the US will ever admit that thier God is not the "Right God." For example, a Catholic will never let his or her child choose whether or not to go to church, because it essentially feels like they are saying to their children, "We're Catholic, and we're proud, but we could be wrong." And no one likes to admit that they're wrong, regardless of how passionately they are convicted to their beliefs. Christians constantly dance around the question, "What if there is no God?" because they are afraid of the answer. So to counter this fear, they blindly follow the beliefs laid down before their existence, ignoring the evidence that they are, in fact, wrong about the existence of God. To acknowledge this evidence is to justify Atheism, and to justify Atheism is to reject Christianity. How could a Christian parent tell their child to go out and seek the evidence that proves all Christians wrong, and then deny the existence of that very evidence when the child finds it?

For that reason, there will never be a law passed to oppose indoctrination, REGARDLESS of the claims of separation of church and state.

[Peregrin Toker]

You can't do that though, since it interferes in the rights of parents to raise their children. It would only cause a massive shitstorm of controversial court cases where children attempt to sue their parents for trying to make them eat broccoli and stuff.

Explain how the heck this is an automatic result of people raising children with twisted morality codes.

[Trytostaydead]

Funny how a lot of people are former Catholics. Appears to me to be more of this type of ex-Christian than any other. Must be the whole uber-organization and orthodoxy of it all not fitting in with the praised rebellion of our modern society.

Well, the Catholic church had been scandalized time and time again and it's such a large centrally organized religion, there is also a lot of room for bad stuff happening on the inidividual church scale and the inidividual self. But that's with almost all religions.

Christianity in America has become more of a heritage than a religion to most people. Kind of like visiting your grandma every weekend. You might not particularly want to, but you have to because of who you are.

[Stormbringer]

Funny how a lot of people are former Catholics. Appears to me to be more of this type of ex-Christian than any other. Must be the whole uber-organization and orthodoxy of it all not fitting in with the praised rebellion of our modern society.

Mostly because on a doctrinal and organizational level the Catholic Church is the most outdated and archaic religious institutions. They're still living in a world and mindset that is more appropriate for the era of kings than the computer age. The fact that they have a habit of isolating and rejecting any one that says different contributes a lot to it.

That and the fact that the Catholic Church has proven time and again that it's priority is the Church not the churchgoers. People notice that and see how little that matchs up with what is said and they get disgusted.

[Tom_Aurum]

I was raised by witches and I'm proud of it. Made the whole idea of my parents and religion kind of fun. In the meanwhile I kind of laughed at my stepfather attempting to summon demons and talk to them. But I still would <never> force my children into any sort of religious ceremonies or what-have-you. If they aren't liking it, oh well. I'd make sure they learned some things, but nothing to actually do with religion. Legislating such a thing however, is not only improbable, but impractical.

The main purpose of the law is to prevent harm, not shield one from indoctrination. So such activities as what jehovah's witnesses do (if I were a judge) would come under general child abuse and neglect laws, regardless of religion.

[jegs2]

Christianity in America has become more of a heritage than a religion to most people. Kind of like visiting your grandma every weekend. You might not particularly want to, but you have to because of who you are.

Good point. Most people couldn't give the Biblical definition of a Christian if their lives depended on it. Some of the things I've heard are jaw-dropping:

"A Christian is someone who believes in God and tries to do the right thing."
"A Christian believes in Mary the mother of Jesus."
"A Christian is somebody who goes to church."
"A Christian believes that Jesus died on a cross."

There are many others...

[Peregrin Toker]

There are many others...

Such as my definition:

A christian is one who follows Jesus.

[LadyTevar]

There are many others...

Such as my definition:

A christian is one who follows Jesus.

That is the basic defination, yes. An expanded one would be "A Christian is one that believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died for their sins."

Which means I'm still Christian.

[Peregrin Toker]

There are many others...

Such as my definition:

A christian is one who follows Jesus.

That is the basic defination, yes. An expanded one would be "A Christian is one that believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died for their sins."

Which means I'm still Christian.

Wouldn't "following Jesus" also imply believing him to be of divine lineage, since he claimed to be the promised Messiah?

Don't forget that Christians usually worship Jesus as well believing him to be the Son of God.

[[BL]Phalanx]

Even if people raise their children with totally twisted norms, and the children decide to follow those twisted values??

Yes. Part of the risk of granting people that kind of freedom, but I feel it's a risk well worth it. Otherwise, you have just given the State the power to deem what can be taught to kids. Now instead of parents "brainwashing" kids it's the government doing it instead, so you have only one brand of teachings for your kids.

Better to have a wide diversity, let people have the freedom to teach their kids as they will (we would still have public education, ya know). In the end, time and progress will weed out most of the truly atrocious teachings, because those teachings simply don't work (and/or reduce the chances of surviving to breed and pass on those teachings). Let the "market place" of our cultures and society sort it out.

[Jonathan]

There are many others...

Such as my definition:

A christian is one who follows Jesus.

That is the basic defination, yes. An expanded one would be "A Christian is one that believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died for their sins."

Which means I'm still Christian.

I think that to cover the ground properly, a Christian would be a disciple of Jesus, i.e. one who follows his teachings. The teachings that cannot be disputed are that he claimed to be the Son of God and was dying for the wons of the world to save them from God's wrath that would come upon his second coming and to which everyone would be subject, with only those who have asked him for forgiveness and therefore received justification and are in the continuing process of being sanctified, who will be saved out of love and for the glory of God (those two things being the same).

I think I would run out of breath saying that though, so I would normally just say that a Christian believes that Jesus died and rose again to save us from our sins if we ask him and that all are in need of that salvation.

[Peregrin Toker]

Even if people raise their children with totally twisted norms, and the children decide to follow those twisted values??

Yes. Part of the risk of granting people that kind of freedom, but I feel it's a risk well worth it. Otherwise, you have just given the State the power to deem what can be taught to kids. Now instead of parents "brainwashing" kids it's the government doing it instead, so you have only one brand of teachings for your kids.

Is it just me, or do I spot... Slippery slope fallacy??

To explain further, it seems like you think that restricting people from raising children to follow twisted values automatically will lead to the government brainwashing everyone.