My point it’s it could carry to a lot of psychological problems and social problems for the kids.
Teaching them about religion is fine. I tell my kids all about the dangers and horrors of religion in the world.
As someone who has had to deal with religious trauma… Yes.
Granted I was raised on Bible belt evangelical Christianity.
I’d say it would have been better if religion was introduced like “well some people believe this, others believe that. I believe in this, but no one knows for sure”.
Instead of “he’s watching you, and you and your mommy and daddy will all go to hell if you ever do anything bad, and you’ll lose all of your friends because you did bad things, and don’t ever forget that you did a bad thing”. More or less
When I asked about religion, my parents just said I can explore it if I want.
Both my parents went to Catholic schools, but one was decidedly not religious, and the other believed in a higher power, but not the biblical God that is particularly interested in human existence.
I went with my best friend to some church teenage kids event (games, etc), and got super weirded out by the mini sermon + heads down prayer thing before festivities. Told my parents that afterwards, and they were like “yep. Pretty creepy, huh? That’s why we don’t do church”
Could teach it just like any other myth.
If you teach religion as truth or false as the kids didn’t have the capacity to make their own choices cos an underdeveloped brain they will believe whatever you tell them ergo you will be abusing them, so maybe the point it’s in the way religion it’s teach to children.
deleted by creator
Fair point, can’t disagree All heil Zeus!
Only teaching them it as if it’s true. Teaching them that a lot of people believe it is going to be useful information to deal with the world.
Yeah my point it’s teaching them religion, not teaching them about religion.
Knowledge about religion is not the same at convincing people to believe in it. We all know about many religions without having turned into followers of them.
Knowledge is good no matter.
Groiming children into vet rain religions is the problem not educating them about it.
This is only unpopular because you are so broad about it. How about “teaching that there is one true religion and anyone who is not part of that religion is wrong and will suffer is child abuse”
Religions are mutually exclusive. Your logic is false.
Every religious person or atheists(atheism as a religion) believe their own religion it’s the only true one, so it’s hard to someone in these mindsets to teach against their own beliefs.
Every religious person or atheists(atheism as a religion) believe their own religion it’s the only true one
Except atheism isn’t a religion, it doesn’t have tenets, beliefs, or dogma. Atheism is simply rejecting the belief of god or gods.
deleted by creator
I would say this definitely applies to specific sects of certain religions. Probably not to all. A number of sects of Christianity count. The idea that everyone is evil and deserves hell until repenting is a pretty twisted worldview. The shit they put on girls and women is deplorable. The sects share in common several techniques used by cults. So basically they are cults. Teaching kids to reject people different from them is vile.
I’m not convinced it applies to all religions, however.
Kindly list the exceptions.
Hard agree.
Troll post
Just because you didn’t liked my post it means I’m a troll, I’m looking for real discussion it doesn’t matter what you believe, why don’t you better get engaged into the debate instead of just saying “Troll post” or are you afraid of what people could think about your opinion?
I’m a Daoist. Teaching my children techniqes of meditation, which have positive influences on mental health (don’t even @ me, I will flood you with peer-reviewed citations) is abuse? Teaching them the benefits of regular exercise is abuse? Teaching them to pay attention to what’s going on with their bodies is abuse? Encouraging honest self-reflection is abuse?
You have a weird definition of abuse.
Daoism is sometimes considered a philosophy more than a religion. There is debate on whether it qualifies for the title religion at all.
It is very much a religion. It has gods and goddesses, scripture, ritual practices, priests and monasteries. I know in the West there is some confusion, but mostly because Asian societies do not tend to make that divide.
On the other hand, Doaism is not really dogmatic, so nobody really gives a shit if you believe in this god, that god, or none at all.
From where I’m sitting, you just completely contradicted yourself.
I find it concerning you seem so invested in it being considered a “religion”. Can we say persecution fetish??
I just stated facts. Your inability to fit them into your preconceptions is not my problem.
Yup. Your predictions don’t make sense from my perspective. That was exactly my point! ;)
That’s where the question comes into play. The set of beliefs without requirements for worship make it a philosophy rather than a religion. A religion that does not require beliefs but rather suggests practical implementations doesn’t fit the same structure as the other major world religions.
Anyway if your beliefs require indoctrination of children to believe in myths and legends as a coercive means of control it’s fucked.
If it does exactly as you say above: it’s not a religion it’s a philosophy, because it does not use myths and legends as coercive means of control.
That’s a straw man.
I think the spiritual points of some regions are not as bad, but teaching the prejudice and idolatry of some of them I believe it’s not good for children and should be seen as child abuse.
I can understand why you’d take this view. I suffered through a conservative religious upbringing so I can definitely relate. However, I think this viewpoint is dangerous overall, and to be honest shows some naivety about how difficult it is to raise kids.
If we start policing what is right and wrong to teach kids, beyond certain limits we start to get into the territory of huge government oversight. There should be things that are off limits (eg obvious example anything pertaining to sexual abuse) but at some point this just becomes government ordained opinion.
As a bad example, say you live in the USA and give your child sandwiches for lunch with two slices of bread. Then you see that in France everyone gives their children baguettes for lunch (bad example). Which of these two is better? If baguettes are better, is giving sandwiches when you could give baguettes more abusive? Who should decide that? What if someone now claims that sandwiches are a part of their religion?
You’re obviously talking about something far more impactful that lunch choices, but I hope I’ve crudely made my point. We should question the way we discuss these topics with children, but we should also remember that we could be at the start (or perhaps the middle) of a very, very slippery slope. In the end I think it’s just down to you to raise your own children the way you feel is right.
I assume your atheist? You seem to be making a moral argument that teaching children religion is immoral. I’m wondering how you come to what morally right or wrong? What’s your logic or proof for your moral framework?
Not OP, but I’m an atheist. Indoctrination of children is immoral, teaching them about myths is not.
I’m wondering how you come to what morally right or wrong? What’s your logic or proof for your moral framework?
Simple. Start with a goal: happiness, well-being, etc. From there you can make objective decisions that further that goal.
As a theist, how do you come to morality? How do you get past the Euthyphro dilemma with regard to morality?
You just state that the goal is happiness, well-being, etc. But don’t provide an objective argument or evidence for why that’s true or an objective moral system. Can you elaborate on that please?
What if harming others makes me happy? Or I do things that bring me good well being at the cost of others and society?
Pressuring children into a belief system that has no basis in reality, which preaches subservience and lack of modern reason, is antithetical to societal advancement. We need to explore the stars, not the preacher’s pants.
If a child finds religion on their own, then cool. But if an adult needs to send them to weekly indoctrination sessions, then that’s child abuse and manipulation.
And who gets to decide that? You? People have different views on the world even between people who don’t believe in religion at all. So let’s have children be indoctrinated by their schools and surroundings. Just like you view religious views as awful and indoctrinating so do other people view other views the same. You might have a Marxist who loves communism and thinks capitalism and its ideas are awful and that we must fight against the liberal capitalist order. Would you consider that person teaching their children as “indoctrination”?
Just because you don’t have reason to believe in religion doesn’t mean other people are in the same boat. And it doesn’t mean there isn’t logic or reason behind it.
I have no problem taking responsibility for that decision, so yes. I’ll decide. The same way Republicans think they can decide that being gay is illegal, being trans means you’re subhuman, and that women don’t deserve reproductive rights. I have no problem making these decisions if that’s the alternative.
I’m not atheist mate, so I don’t believe teaching religion it’s moral or not, I basically just follow one rule in my life involving this and it is: do to others what you would like others do to you or you can use the negative form if you prefer: don’t do to others what you wouldn’t like others to do to you.
I’m not against religion but I believe people should be allowed to follow any religion until at least 18yo, there are some people who say at 18yo human brain isn’t totally developed so maybe it could be some years more.
You say that your not making a moral claim but in your original post you say that it can pose psychological or social issues. Which sounds like you’re making a moral claim. Unless you’re just making a subjective “moral” claim that you don’t like people doing X. In which case that’s similar to someone saying they don’t like soda, candy, or a certain food. Meaning its just preference.
Thats a decent rule to live by but how do you prove that to be objectively true? How do you show that this moral system is true?
