How religious before CPS is called?

[Surlethe]

The debate in the N&P homeschool thread got me thinking -- especially Thanas' comments about a fundamentalist family coming under the threat of having their children removed for homeschooling.

Every so often, someone here comes out and says that parents so-and-so ought to have their kids taken away from them for such-and-such a practice; often, it's behavior that's promoted by religious groups, such as spanking or homeschooling. Dawkins, in God Delusion, argues that raising children in an even moderately religious environment is child abuse because of the fear of hell that this can instill. Indeed, someone might (try to) make the case that raising a child to believe in the supernatural as true is abusing that child by teaching falsehoods, or is not fit to be a parent at all simply by believing in such things.

On the other end of the argument spectrum, there's near-universal agreement (legal and social) that parents who refuse to get their children medical assistance are unfit guardians; I recall a case in DC several years ago where a small church group was arrested and charged with manslaughter for praying over a sick child instead of getting medical attention, and there are well-known cases about faith healing groups who deny medical treatment for their children. Similar criticisms are often leveled against Jehovah's Witnesses for their aversion to blood and marrow transfusions, and as far as I know they meet with pretty general agreement. Branching out from Christianity for a moment, one might make similar arguments against Muslim parents who, say, would be willing to threaten a child with death for dating a non-Muslim.

So my question is, where do we draw the line, as a society, legally and morally? How does the morality of religious parenting vary as the parent goes from atheist to <depth of involvement> in <particular religious movement>? (For simplicity's sake, we can assume evangelical Christianity, but be aware that there are many different variations of conservative Christians, and, more broadly, many different variations of religions in general.)

[kc8tbe]

From a legal standpoint, it's pretty clear that the line is drawn when the parents' beliefs result in irreversible physical harm to the child. So, for example, faith-healing and honor-killings are universally frowned upon by Western culture whereas spanking and instilling fear of hell are widely tolerated.

From a moral standpoint, Western views seem IMHO to be consistent with a utilitarian outlook. We can talk all day about how some people are unfit to be parents and how their kids deserve a better upbringing, but in the end, can we actually provide that better upbringing? If, for the sake of argument, we actually took kids out of highly religious families, what would we do with them? Place them in foster care?

While I agree that in principle those kids would be better off with secular parents, pragmatically I don't think we can provide them better parentage than what they already have. So here I think the moral line-in-the-sand has to weigh the harm caused by the parents vs the harm caused by whatever the alternative (foster care, adoption, etc.) causes. For kids with parents that smoke, spank them, or teach them about hell, reprehensible as all that is, they're probably better off where they are now. For a kid in some polygamy/child-sex cult, though, a strong argument could be made for placing them elsewhere.

[Ryan Thunder]

<snip>

Are we going to start taking kids away from their parents for smoking around them? Driving over the speed limit?

[General Zod]

<snip>

Are we going to start taking kids away from their parents for smoking around them? Driving over the speed limit?

Since that has nothing to do with anything that was said in the OP, I'd hope not.

[Samuel]

<snip>

Are we going to start taking kids away from their parents for smoking around them? Driving over the speed limit?

How dangerous do the activities parents partake in have to be before we decide they are not fit to raise their children? This is simply a case of trying to decide where the line should be drawn. It obviously has to be decided relative to other parents, but aside from that I have no idea how to figure out an answer aside from the obvious threat to a childs health should get them taken away.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Also where would say Neo-Pagan parents fit into this. Spirits and gods, magick and fortune telling is real. But you still have to do the footwork. Plus no hell in Neo-Paganism.

[CyrilsScribe]

I hope you mean that there are people who do believe in "spirits and gods, magick (what is with the K) and fortune telling is real" but they are in a tiny, tiny, insignificant minority. Anyway, can psychological damage caused by a true belief in Hell be considered irreversible? One problem is that if we draw the line to close we risk causing the school effect, where parents have little or no control over there children, concomitant to the problem that we have in schools today where no effective discipline has yet to be seen(corporal punishment is illegal and should be).

[Serafine666]

Generally, the "child has been definitely harmed" is not difficult to discern and when there is evidence of real harm done, the decision isn't difficult either. Ditto if a parent indoctrinates a child to believe something completely wacky that conditions a child to develop in a psychologically unhealthy way like the kid who absorbs his drunk parent's rampage to protect the other kids and comes out more mentally damaged than physically. But it gets really complicated when you back away from the extremes. If parents teach a child creationism, is that child endangered or harmed? It would seem not since many kids who evolve into atheists later in life started out as ultra-religious; being told to believe in God doesn't seem to reliably take. A child that believes in Hell and punishment for sins may be psychologically-warped... or they may be as normal as any other kid, depending on how the concept of Hell was taught. For example, some Christian sects believe that a kid starts out as a sinner and needs to be baptized to be clean... and may end up gently breaking the news to a child that your little baby brother is going to Hell because he wasn't baptized first (which isn't all that great for psychological health, BTW). Mormons do not believe in the "original sin" at all and further don't believe that you go to Hell unless you're a Hitler. Other Christian sects believe in Hell but are convinced that if you love Jesus, you'll not go to Hell. So even among Christian sects insisting that there's a Hell that bad people go to, a child being taught to believe isn't synonymous with them being psychologically damaged by the eduction. And that's just an inkling of the complexities you encounter when you move away from extremes.

[Count Chocula]

Yah, I'd have to agree that actual, demonstrable physical harm is the dividing line...as it is for many criminal offenses, natch. Unless the child is demonstrating psychotic or atypical behavior that can be traced to their upbringing, it's kinda hard to justify (in my mind anyway) separating kids from their parents based on a social worker's opinion of their state of mind.

Your choice of topic title, i.e. "How religious," plus your citing of Dawkins, tells me (between the lines) more about your opinion than your post comes out and says. I read your stance as: "You're a fundamentalist Christian? You believe the Left Behind books? NO KIDS FOR YOU!1!1!

[Invictus ChiKen]

I hope you mean that there are people who do believe in "spirits and gods, magick (what is with the K) and fortune telling is real" but they are in a tiny, tiny, insignificant minority. Anyway, can psychological damage caused by a true belief in Hell be considered irreversible? One problem is that if we draw the line to close we risk causing the school effect, where parents have little or no control over there children, concomitant to the problem that we have in schools today where no effective discipline has yet to be seen(corporal punishment is illegal and should be).

Sorry about the K, picked it up from Pagan friends. Idea is to tell it apart from stage magic, both other than a few being giant doches along the lines of teachers that do the may I?/can I? thing when a kid needs to use the bathroom no one has had issues telling the two apart. As for minority, sorry Cyril these people are looking to be the #3 spirtual option in America and may in our lifetimes (unless your like 60 or over) over take Christianity as THE religion of America.

It's kinda funny seeing them upset the likes of both the Pope and Dawkins (or I could be getting my big name atheist mixed up).

[Liberty]

Anyway, can psychological damage caused by a true belief in Hell be considered irreversible?

I've often wondered about how exactly this works. I was raised a fundie, and I still have this slight fear that nags at me from time to time, of what might happen after I die if they're right, even though I don't believe there is a hell. Of course, one thing that helps was that the ingrained in me that "God loves you" "Jesus loves you" ad nauseum. That helps me remain confident that hell makes absolutely no sense, even in a Christian view.

So I do think it has to do with how hell is taught.

Your choice of topic title, i.e. "How religious," plus your citing of Dawkins, tells me (between the lines) more about your opinion than your post comes out and says. I read your stance as: "You're a fundamentalist Christian? You believe the Left Behind books? NO KIDS FOR YOU!1!1!

Well, you have to remember that Surlethe's in-laws still have <18 yo kids at home, and they're awaiting the rapture. I guess I've never asked him what he thinks here...but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't support them having their kids taken. In other words, when he thinks about this it can be personal as well as hypothetical.

One thing that strikes me when I look at people homeschooling for religious reasons is how dedicated they are to their kids. They love their kids more than anything, and they put their kids wellbeing, etc, above everything - above their careers, above their economic situation, above their own free time, etc. And yet - they believe that the most important thing in the world that they can teach their children is to "love Jesus." The truth of the Bible, creation, the rapture, premarital sex is a sin, other religions were started by Satan, etc, etc, etc. So - how do we handle this?

[Darth Wong]

So my question is, where do we draw the line, as a society, legally and morally? How does the morality of religious parenting vary as the parent goes from atheist to <depth of involvement> in <particular religious movement>? (For simplicity's sake, we can assume evangelical Christianity, but be aware that there are many different variations of conservative Christians, and, more broadly, many different variations of religions in general.)

As a society, we draw it where the majority tolerates it, because that's just how society works. But in principle, what's the difference between showing your kids hardcore pornography and indoctrinating them in Biblical beliefs? In both cases, you're showing your kids something that someone thinks might be harmful to their psychology.

And yet, we all know that only one of them would get your kids taken away from you. Even in a custody battle, it would be pretty hard to use "Biblical indoctrination = bad parenting" as evidence, but if your spouse was showing the kids hardcore porn, that's pretty much a slam-dunk custody win for you.

[Thanas]

As always, it depends on the specific circumstances.

If the religion causes them to break laws, then of course the religion is cause enough to get their children away from them. If they do not break any law, religion does not enter into it. In fact, I would not look at religion at all, I would rather discuss whether some actions violate the wall. As for religious reasons, if religious practices result in psychological abuse, then that is both illegal and well enough reasons to, depending on the circumstances, remove the children.

So as soon as you can get a psychiatrist to testify that the practice causes psychological harm, then I definitely would support removal of the child.

[Serafina]

Well, first ask a question:
Why take children away at all?

Simple, parents have a job: Make their children functioning members of society so that they can live a good live.

This, obviously, means that the answer depends on the society the parents live in.
If they happen to live in a fundamentalist country, it might easily be imperative to teach the children religion - otherwise, they might run into a lot of trouble.

But in a modern, western society, this should not be the case. They are rather more likely to run into a multitude of situations that require tolerance (not just religious tolerance) and where religious preconceptions hinder critical thinking.

So, the children should be taken away when the religious indoctrination impairs their capability to function in our society.
This typically happens when the religion is put above everything else. This is not the case for most christians - most of them try to follow the "golden rule" and therefore at least try to do what is best for others.
But with fundamentalists, this is very often the case. If you teach a child that the bible is the inerrant word of god and that the word of god is all that matters, you raise it in a way that can very easily lead to destructive behaviour.
It does not necessarily happen - but it is a serious risk factor (kinda like smoking parents - it does not automatically lead to smoking children, but the risk is increased manyfold).

In the end, the decision should depend on the status of the children. If the child shows tendencies of fundamentalist behaviour, measures should be taken to counteract that. Of course, taking the child away should not be the first step.
But if the parents deny their child the offered help, then it may lead to that.

[Terralthra]

I find the assertion that we should base this on "actual, physical harm" to be nearly offensive. Consider that it is possible for parents to systematically molest and even rape their children without ever causing "physical harm." Psychological harm must be a criterion, or we are failing massively.

[Simon_Jester]

Generally, the "child has been definitely harmed" is not difficult to discern and when there is evidence of real harm done, the decision isn't difficult either. Ditto if a parent indoctrinates a child to believe something completely wacky that conditions a child to develop in a psychologically unhealthy way like the kid who absorbs his drunk parent's rampage to protect the other kids and comes out more mentally damaged than physically. But it gets really complicated when you back away from the extremes. If parents teach a child creationism, is that child endangered or harmed? It would seem not since many kids who evolve into atheists later in life started out as ultra-religious; being told to believe in God doesn't seem to reliably take.

For that matter, while being raised as a creationist may mess up your education, it won't actually kill or cripple you. The worst reasonably probable case is that you grow up ignorant, which is not nearly as bad as growing up to abuse your children, or not growing up at all because your parents withheld medical care or neglected you to the point where you died of thirst.

So there's a big gap in there. We can call raising your child to believe in foolish ideas "harm," but on the grand scale of harm it's pretty small. Even compared to the kind of psychological trauma that a really intense fear of Hell can produce, it's small. If the child is outright terrorized by the fear of Hell, and the parents take every opportunity to strengthen it, to the point where they become a shivering wreck... then it's fair to call CPS, I'd say. But that's far beyond what the typical fundie parents do.

I'd draw the line at the point where the parents aren't just filling their child's mind with foolishness; they're actually scarring it, with horrible experiences and sensations that cannot be unlearned or removed. Creationism doesn't qualify; having your parents try to spank the devil out of you because you want to go play outside on Sunday does.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I go for the 5150 rule, as long as they aren't a threat to their children's health and safety. so basically Christian Scientists, Scientologists, and Jehova's Witnesses, for their tendancy to put children's (their own and others) at risk for their tendancy to keep away from hospitals and innoculations

[Alyrium Denryle]

So there's a big gap in there. We can call raising your child to believe in foolish ideas "harm," but on the grand scale of harm it's pretty small. Even compared to the kind of psychological trauma that a really intense fear of Hell can produce, it's small. If the child is outright terrorized by the fear of Hell, and the parents take every opportunity to strengthen it, to the point where they become a shivering wreck... then it's fair to call CPS, I'd say. But that's far beyond what the typical fundie parents do.

When I was a kid, the church I went to was one called Bible Baptist Church in Fairbanks Alaska. This can only be called a Christian Dominionist church which actively preached bigotry against gays, people of other religions and blatant sexism. This church had book burnings, and sent teenage girls to a summer camp that brainwashed them into becoming subservient body-slaves to their future husbands. It had one of the largest congregations in Fairbanks. Let that sink in for a second. When my mom finally divorced my father and took me away from that aweful place I was an emotional and social cripple, and it took me 5 years or so before I was in any way functional. Had that not happened, I would probably be a suicide statistic, and I was one of the headstrong ones who did not fully believe that crap. Imagine how fucked up someone who grows up actually believing it would be.

No child should grow up in an environment that even remotely resembles that. Ever.

[Liberty]

So, the children should be taken away when the religious indoctrination impairs their capability to function in our society.

In many places in the U.S., believing in YEC does not impair capability to function in our society. After all, 48% of Americans believe in YEC. Similarly, believing the Bible is inerrant does not impair their capability to function. Or would you disagree? How would you define "impair capability to function?"

If you teach a child that the bible is the inerrant word of god and that the word of god is all that matters, you raise it in a way that can very easily lead to destructive behaviour.
It does not necessarily happen - but it is a serious risk factor (kinda like smoking parents - it does not automatically lead to smoking children, but the risk is increased manyfold).

Hm. Interesting. So would that mean that I should have been taken from my parents? If so, it would be the same with everyone I grew up knowing. Have you considered what harm taking a child from his or her parents would do to that child? If I had been taken from my parents, and likely parted from my siblings (too many of us to keep together), I can't help but think that I would be scarred. Not to mention that the U.S. foster system is awful. I think the damage done to children by taking them away from their parents should be taken into consideration.

When I was a kid, the church I went to was one called Bible Baptist Church in Fairbanks Alaska. This can only be called a Christian Dominionist church which actively preached bigotry against gays, people of other religions and blatant sexism. This church had book burnings, and sent teenage girls to a summer camp that brainwashed them into becoming subservient body-slaves to their future husbands. It had one of the largest congregations in Fairbanks. Let that sink in for a second. When my mom finally divorced my father and took me away from that aweful place I was an emotional and social cripple, and it took me 5 years or so before I was in any way functional. Had that not happened, I would probably be a suicide statistic, and I was one of the headstrong ones who did not fully believe that crap. Imagine how fucked up someone who grows up actually believing it would be.

No child should grow up in an environment that even remotely resembles that. Ever.

God, that's awful. I'm interested in learning more about these summer camps. I am very interested in the role played by women in religion. My upbringing was not that extreme.

So I guess maybe you have to get a psychologist in? I'm not an expert in psychology, but I think that likely a psychologist would have determined that Alyrium was being seriously psychologically damaged while my siblings and I were not being psychologically damaged to the same extent. My siblings who have come of age and left the house are functional adults, albeit both of them both still believe in YEC and think gays are living in sin. Still, though, neither of them hold these beliefs as strongly as my parents do...which is interesting. And maybe I am biased when it comes to my family, because I know them personally. Maybe my younger siblings should be taken from my parents. It's just that knowing what I do and seeing what I see, I don't think the situation at all warrants that.

Is there a set list of indicators for psychological damage that could be used? The evaluation would have to be uniform to eliminate abuses.

[Simon_Jester]

So there's a big gap in there. We can call raising your child to believe in foolish ideas "harm," but on the grand scale of harm it's pretty small. Even compared to the kind of psychological trauma that a really intense fear of Hell can produce, it's small. If the child is outright terrorized by the fear of Hell, and the parents take every opportunity to strengthen it, to the point where they become a shivering wreck... then it's fair to call CPS, I'd say. But that's far beyond what the typical fundie parents do.

When I was a kid, the church I went to was one called Bible Baptist Church in Fairbanks Alaska. This can only be called a Christian Dominionist church which actively preached bigotry against gays, people of other religions and blatant sexism. This church had book burnings, and sent teenage girls to a summer camp that brainwashed them into becoming subservient body-slaves to their future husbands. It had one of the largest congregations in Fairbanks. Let that sink in for a second. When my mom finally divorced my father and took me away from that aweful place I was an emotional and social cripple, and it took me 5 years or so before I was in any way functional. Had that not happened, I would probably be a suicide statistic, and I was one of the headstrong ones who did not fully believe that crap. Imagine how fucked up someone who grows up actually believing it would be.
No child should grow up in an environment that even remotely resembles that. Ever.

I agree, though we might have some minor quibbles about the definition of "remotely resembles." There's a fair amount of wiggle room in there.

In many places in the U.S., believing in YEC does not impair capability to function in our society. After all, 48% of Americans believe in YEC. Similarly, believing the Bible is inerrant does not impair their capability to function. Or would you disagree? How would you define "impair capability to function?"

Not knowing a scientific theory doesn't normally stop you from functioning. Knowing about natural selection makes you better informed about the world, which is desirable in its own right... but by no stretch of the imagination do you need that knowledge to live.

If we base our judgements on "capability to function," teaching your children YEC shouldn't disqualify you from raising them. If we base it on something else, of course, it might.

[Serafina]

So, the children should be taken away when the religious indoctrination impairs their capability to function in our society.

In many places in the U.S., believing in YEC does not impair capability to function in our society. After all, 48% of Americans believe in YEC. Similarly, believing the Bible is inerrant does not impair their capability to function. Or would you disagree? How would you define "impair capability to function?"

That may well be - but as i said "ut in a modern, western society, this should not be the case. It isn't in most of it. And as i said, it depends on the society.

If you teach a child that the bible is the inerrant word of god and that the word of god is all that matters, you raise it in a way that can very easily lead to destructive behaviour.
It does not necessarily happen - but it is a serious risk factor (kinda like smoking parents - it does not automatically lead to smoking children, but the risk is increased manyfold).

Hm. Interesting. So would that mean that I should have been taken from my parents? If so, it would be the same with everyone I grew up knowing. Have you considered what harm taking a child from his or her parents would do to that child? If I had been taken from my parents, and likely parted from my siblings (too many of us to keep together), I can't help but think that I would be scarred. Not to mention that the U.S. foster system is awful. I think the damage done to children by taking them away from their parents should be taken into consideration.

It is a risk factor.
Look, we do not take children away if their parents smoke. That's partially because smoking is still widely accepted as not too bad - but also because the impairment on functioning that is done by smoking is not that big.
But if the parents do drugs, it is way more likely that the children are taken away - because society thinks that doing drugs makes one unable to function in our society (they are, of course, quite often correct).
Both are addictions, but one is worse than the other.
Likewise, fundamentally religious parents are a risk factor.
They may not be able to impair their children sufficiently (like a tobacco addicion - bad, but not too bad) - but it certainly IS possible that they impair them too much.

Taking the children away should only be the last measure, particulary since we are talking about a long-term, gradually impairment instead of immediate danger.
But if you have fundamentalist christians that teach their children that only god matters and that refuse any outside intervention, then it can become a necessity.

Image in was no talking about christian fundies, but muslim fundies. Muslim fundamentalists that teach their children that only the glory of Allah matters, and that everything is justfied if it is the will of god.
Think about what you would do in that case. Spoiler

And then realize that many christian fundamentalists teach their children exactly the same thing.

[Simon_Jester]

That may well be - but as i said "ut in a modern, western society, this should not be the case. It isn't in most of it. And as i said, it depends on the society.

I must have misunderstood you. It sounds like you're saying that in a modern society, not knowing a scientific theory that mostly impacts your understanding of events that happened in the distant past should be crippling.

But that can't be right... I don't think I should argue against what I think you're saying until I'm sure it is what you're saying. Could you clarify?

Image in was no talking about christian fundies, but muslim fundies. Muslim fundamentalists that teach their children that only the glory of Allah matters, and that everything is justfied if it is the will of god.
Think about what you would do in that case. Spoiler

And then realize that many christian fundamentalists teach their children exactly the same thing.

I suspect I'd react about the same way to Muslim fundies as to equivalent Christian fundies. Society is good at showing people that they have options, so a child isn't likely to be permanently harmed by a religious upbringing unless that upbringing tries to cloister them tightly enough that they don't get to make a real decision about whether or not to stay.

If it's something that leads predictably to the kids growing up to commit crimes, abuse family members, and so on... at that point someone should take a very hard look at them. If it's just a matter of them ending up with a head full of foolish nonsense, there's not much to be done about it. There are too many other ways to learn foolish nonsense, and we can't ban them all.

[Liberty]

But if you have fundamentalist christians that teach their children that only god matters and that refuse any outside intervention, then it can become a necessity.

Oh, definitely if they are risking the actual physical harm of the child. I talked to a college student who was raised like this a few years ago. He told me that he and his nine siblings had all been born at home, their dad, who had no medical training, acting as doctor. Neither he nor any of his siblings have ever been to the hospital, or, according to him, ever needed him. He said his church teaches that God will take care of your medical needs, and he believes that is what has happened. I tried to ask him "what if your sibling broke a bone? Shouldn't your parents take him to the hospital?" But he simply said that that wouldn't happen; God is taking care of them. Now, no actual harm resulted in his family - none of them have been seriously harmed or killed. However, that is damn scary, especially when you consider that he also told me that one of his mom's labors had been hard, that the baby had been born blue and not breathing, and that his parents had prayed to God and then the baby "miraculously" started breathing, and is just fine today. Fucking. Scary.

Image in was no talking about christian fundies, but muslim fundies. Muslim fundamentalists that teach their children that only the glory of Allah matters, and that everything is justfied if it is the will of god.
Think about what you would do in that case. Spoiler

And then realize that many christian fundamentalists teach their children exactly the same thing.

Oh, I have thought of this. And I think that fundies hold a major double standard when it comes to their view of Islam, but they're so convinced that they're right! Anyway, I would say that there is a definite problem if (a) parents marry their children off against their wills at early ages and (b) parents teach their children that violence in the name of God is justified. With a few exceptions, Christian fundies don't do either of these. Besides this, though, you are right that there is little difference.