Should parents be allowed to raise their children in their religion?

If you don't think so, please post how exactly you would stop them from doing it.

This was inspirited by this post --> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1602375&mesg_id=1602375

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

me and my siblings - and just as my parents did, I am letting my children know that it is up to them to find out what they believe and if they want to exlore other beliefs, to do so.

it's not really about religion.

It's asking if those people are using their corruption of a religion to abuse children.

Which is a valid question.

the original thread.

Raising your children in your religion and indoctrinating them in dangerous, radical, or cult-like beliefs are two totally different things. I know there are plenty of people here who disagree, and think that being a part of any organized religion = being a nutcase, but I think many of us don't see it as so black and white.

Anyone agree/disagree?

Can parents psychologically abuse their children?

and

Does psychological abuse equate with physical and sexual abuse?

and

Can psychological abuse take on religious fundamentalist overtones?

and

Do these camps constitute psychological abuse?

I think without seeing the documentary, the last question is difficult to answer.

To control and maim someone else in some way to satisfy the abusers desires for control,power,ego trip,or whatever is abuse.Abuse is always a freely made CHOICE an abuser makes to hurt another person. Abuse is NOT self defense, it is a choice.. The target in an abuse situation has no choice in what an abuser does to the Target,or attempts to do.The target can try to draw a boundary and call the violation what it is,abuse. A choice must be made, by an overwhelmed target of abuse under duress..The Target could, choose to Tolerate the Abuse, Fight back,or Leave.
Sometimes even those choices are limited. Making a choice under threat and intimidation ,while being torn down is difficult and it is hard to remember all your freedoms and possible choices in how to handle the situation.

Here's an easy way to see who has the right to say OUCH after an abuse situation.

Person A is an abuser with a knife.
Person A stabs a person B in the stomach with the knife. Person A is not wounded. Person A has power over person B.

So, person A cannot be the one to tell other people,witnesses or
the wounded person how painful the stab wound was how much damage it did,or claim the wound is not hurting person B at all and demand he not say OUCH,to cover up the fact Person A stabbed someone because he could do it..and person A is wrong.

Person A holding the knife,the knife itself,are not wounded by this encounter at all. Only person B is bleeding here.

Person B is the ONLY PERSON who has the capacity to say what hurts and how bad it hurt to be stabbed by person A.


So Person A , the knife, the bystanders,the helpers,the therapists,the courts,other victims who sympathize, all of them have no right to determine for person B the severity of the wound or how severe the pain is for Person B. Person Be has a right to EXPRESS PAIN. To Express outrage,fear anger at being wounded by person A.
Only person B who was stabbed by person A can tell others how bad it hurt to be stabbed with a knife by person A. PERIOD.


Person B feels pain of a wound imposed by person A and the knife..And Person B is the ONLY one capable of relating how it feels to be stabbed, Person B knows how Person B feels,and Person B is the ONE to explain or tell every other person in the world,how it feels to be Person B who was wounded by Person A and how it felt to be abused by Person A's choice to make a target of Person B..

You can apply this simple understanding to verbal abuse,or ANY kind of misuse of power to disrespect another's person..


But in this culture,because it has internalized the abuse,and made it"normal" everybody's voice but the targets voice is respected and heard.
When abusers tell victims to toughen up and just take it,threaten them with more abuse if they tell anybody who hurt them ,or demand they shut up and move on.. The abuser is basically trying to hide from what the abuser did, to pretend it never happened after the fact.

By minimizing the severity of abuse by minimizing the targets voice and painful expressions an abuser wounds the target again,just to save the abusers own face, at the targets expense. An Abuser hides in encouraging others to not look at the abuser like an abuser who can't be trusted to respect people.. Abuser blames the target for The Abusers choice to hurt someone.

When bystanders choose to trust an abuser and take an abusers word over a target's pain cry because they are ashamed of not helping a target in need,and taking responsibility for defending another person's person hood, out of empathy and ignoring their conscience,because of cowardice or whatever else.. Out of guilt bystanders will minimize the deliberate actions of abusers that harm,and they also deny the aspect of choice,(because they chose to not help)and they pretend it wasn't so bad what the abuser did.The Abuser benefits from this.They all shoot the messenger/target to hide their own shame and they defend abuse and by standing as if it was a valid choice.

The denial of bystanders to own up for their lack of willingness to step in and defend another person from abuse reinforces to the abusers that the abuser can get away with more violations of persons again and bush the limits further and test it,by getting progressively more abusive..And because nobody intervenes and puts a boundary upon abusers the target starts internalizing the abusers view of the target it can make a target self destruct .When bystanders repeatedly say to targets expressing pain or outrage over abusers,stuff like"get over it" they are defending abusers who violate other persons because the bystander is ashamed of himself.This creates a "culture" tolerant of abusers.
Denial is alot easier for a bystander than risking confrontation and change and possibly becoming a target of abuse himself. It is a moral cowardice to by stand and obey abusers of power.Denial is easier than looking at your own weakness in a culture that is full of power and domination games, victims and victimizers..

To impose the parents' belief system on a child, unadulterated, is a well-intended variety of child abuse, IMHO.

Kids should be allowed... encouraged.... to learn as much as they can about *all* religions and to learn about atheism and agnosticism as well. Decisions about practise and affiliation should be left to the child when he/she reaches adulthood.

Anxieties that little kids have about death and an afterlife can be addressed by presenting any of a score or so creation myths as *beliefs* that some people have. The child is free to share that belief. The particulars of a creation myth belief system should not be presented as *fact*, since they are not.

But no, the government should not *prevent* parents from indoctrinating their children for the obvious reason that this would be a usurpation of individual rights.

when they indoctrinate them in their religious beliefs?

Bryant

by usurpation of the gov't getting involved at this level. There are established precedents( don't ask me to cite them) wherein limits to the parent's rights to raise their kids without regard to the norms of the larger society have been established.

Cults who risk their kids' life and health via wacko ideas about medicine and diet come to mind. ( Yes, on another level they are *all* cults; but some of them are more deranged than others, and some are actually beneficial to society and to some of their adherents.... Quakerism comes to mind.)

I have usurped my child's right to stick his hand in the oven because I know better, and he's too immature to get it. Children have lots of rights taken away every day. (smoking, drinking, voting, etc. etc.)

When my son is older and can pay his own hospital bills, he can stick his hands in the oven all he wants. Likewise, when he's older, he can go to whichever church he wants, or no church, if he chooses. Until then, he'll go with me. But I'll always teach him about any religion or belief system he wants to know about. I'll share my opinions, but give him the tools he needs to develop his own. 'Cause I'm liberal like that.

for their kids.

...or infringe on the rights of others in doing so, and children have rights.

When I became older, I decided that it was a bunch of bulshit.

even though I was brought up Christian, I'm now a Deist, and have been far happier.

yes - but I also think that indoctrinating your kid and telling them there is no other choice is wrong and . . weak.

They "should be allowed" (I hate that phrase) to come to their own conclusions. I'm a hybrid cathojew jewthelic? Who knows. They let me make my own choice, but after being told in CCD that I wouldn't understand because I was a half jew and in shul that I couldn't really be a "real" jew because I was half catholic, I decided they were all loony tunes. Nice, benevolent bigots, but bigots.

If I had been forced to one or the other though, I would have resented it a lot more - because I don't think I ever had "faith" of any kind.

Plus we (sibs and I) discovered early on that the only reason we were being sent off to discover which "faith" we wanted was so my parents could stay home and do the hootchy kootchy and shake it all about, and that's what it was all about.

but this is a political board. There's a line between what we would like or think people should choose to do, and what we think they should be forced to do, and that's where the politics and theories of government come in.

Bryant

if they want to, but you should make sure they understand that that isn't the only faith out there. My mother is very Christian, and she brought me up as a Christian. The thing is, to her, CHristianity was "right" so I just figured that was the only religion that mattered. But ever since a few months ago, when I let go of Christianity, and became a Deist (well, sort of), I have been an infinantly better and happier person.

So, do I think parents should let kids go with them? Sure, But if they do, they need to let kids understand that that religion isn't the be all and end all, or at least teach them tolerance.

Should there be a law, or even a moral obligation of sorts, that says you shouldn't raise kids in your religion? Hell no! It's not the governments business. But until the kids can understand religion (teen years) it's ultimately the parents decision what happens. But I also think that parents shouldn't hinder kids who want to expand religious ideas (ie, you shouldn't tell them they're gonna go to hell)

See Bill Of Rights, re: Freedom of Religion.

If they don't want to go (and it's a sincere objection, rather than just "I don't want to go sit at church"), how is it moral to force them?

force a child or an adult to do somthing thay don't want to do.period

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) Economist and Philosopher


"Empathy is antithetical to control, which is why control systems demand psychopathy as the standard mode of function."
Keep hierarchy and contractual obligation prostrate before caring, compassion, and a heart-felt responsibility for all life."

To do so would be to argue that any use of parental control is immoral. I think age in this case would have to be a relevant difference, such that discrimination is valid - a child is not fully capable of making judgements for him or herself, and therefore it is acceptable to exercise power over the child to develop that capability.

If you're not willing to accept the notion "a parent forcing their child to brush their teeth is immoral" as an absurdity prima facie, your willingness to accept the above formulation may vary.

isn't forcing. Brushing teeth is a matter of safety and health. Church however is not.Church is not about teaching someone else HOW to be healthly or safe in a literal sense.It's about sppiritual philosophies and such.The Unknown and how you look at it. Brushing teeth it is very obvious what will happen to a person if you don't brush teeth,but if you are not forced to church,there is no proof a kid is affected by that like they are by dental decay. Oranges and apples dude.

I strongly believe kids should be encouraged to discover their own very personal spiritual path. If I have kids I plan on reading them Jefferson's letter to his nephew Peter Carr. It talks about the importance of finding your own way spiritually and it says which ever way you chose is absolutely cool!

I also think it's important to give kids as much information as possible on all ideas and religions before encouraging them to form a belief system.

What about this question instead: should parents be allowed to make a child's life miserable if s/he is less than enthusiastic about their religion?

which was Methodist. He didn't get him involved in any groups - they just went to the services. Then he stopped taking him. In that time I wasn't going to church. I discovered the Unitarian church when my son was about 14. By that time he'd been away from church several years and absolutely didn't want to go to church with me. I think he would have been richly rewarded from attending the church because they have a superb youth program but I didn't force church on him. His spiritual views are fine enough.

My husband and I plus our three children went to our local Baptist Church, and all of us were baptized; there.As our children grew up, all of them went in a different direction. We still feel we did the right thing, because they were not made to go to our church after they started getting a mind of their own. They are all law abiding, and all around good citizens. We just gave them a foundation, and we're very proud of them.