A Strange Form of Indoctrination

The Western religions by no means have a monopoly on childhood indoctrination. This is perhaps one of the more bizarre examples of that:

Boston boy enthroned as Buddhist sect head in Darjeeling

The journey from Jigme Wangchuk to His Holiness Galwa Lorepa; the journey from Boston, USA to Drukpa Sangag Choeling Monastery in Dali, near Darjeeling town in North Bengal was definitely a trying and testing time for both 11-year-old Jigme, his parents and his sister.

However, for the Drukpa Kagyu Sect of Tantrayana Buddhism (Lamaism), it was a time for boundless exhilaration as they had found one of the Gyalwa Namsum (Three Victorious Ones) after a long gap of more than 700 years.

Born in Boston, USA, Jigme Wangchuk was identified as the first reincarnation of HH Galwa Lorepa of the Drukpa Kagyu sect, a reincarnation after more than 700 years. With Jigme Wangchuk coming to Darjeeling even his parents have sold their family business in the USA and come to Darjeeling to stay here and serve him. His sister also will be studying in Darjeeling henceforth.

Talking to HT, he stated it is a big transition. “I do miss being a joyful school boy. I miss my home, my grandparents, aunts and uncles. However, being a Rinpoche is such a great honour and I feel blessed with my past responsibilities.

“My parents keep visiting me here in the monsatery and they told me that they have moved here to serve me and take care of me. As for my friends, I will contact them through emails,” he added.

HH Galwa Lorepa has withdrawn himself (own will) from Grade 5 of St. Peter School in Boston. Henceforth he will be continuing his monastic studies in the Druk Sangag Choeling Monastery in Darjeeling.

However, the transition from a USA schoolboy to one of the heads of a Buddhist sect has not been an easy one for the family. Dechen, mother of Jigme talking to HT stated, “He used to always talk of his past life but we did not take it seriously, dubbing it as a young mind fantasies. Two years back we were visiting South India on a holiday. One afternoon at the Kagyu Nalanda Monsatery in Mysore, Jigme suddenly stopped playing and started narrating his past life as if in a trance.”

Perhaps the parents should have trusted their first instinct about this young boy’s childhood fantasies – now he really believes that he is a reincarnation of some 700 year old religious guru.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Innaiah Narisetti

—– Forced Into Faith: How Religion Abuses Children’s Rights by Innaiah Narisetti (Prometheus Books)

In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, proclaiming elementary rights for children worldwide. Among other provisions, the Convention safeguards children’s religious freedom and their freedom of thought. But because child rearing is recognized as the primary responsibility of parents, the question of what children are raised to believe is left up to their mothers and fathers.

In this controversial critique of the UN Convention, humanist Innaiah Narisetti forcefully argues that children’s rights should include complete freedom from religious belief. Narisetti proposes that the choice of religious belief or nonbelief should be deferred till adulthood. Just as most societies recognize that marriage and civic responsibilities such as voting are adult prerogatives that children should not be allowed to exercise, so should the choice of a belief system wait till an individual is competent to exercise mature judgment.

Narisetti cites numerous examples of the ways in which early religious indoctrination leads to later negative attitudes such as intolerance, suspicion, and outright hostility directed toward those who believe differently. He also notes that religion provides a cloak for such obvious evils as sexual abuse, genital mutilation, and corporal punishment of children. While most societies are quick to condemn such abuses, Narisetti suggests that they should be willing to take the next logical step and look to the role of religion in such problems.

Including the complete text of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this candid, unflinching critique of childhood religious education will provoke much thoughtful discussion.

Innaiah Narisetti, Ph.D. (Hyderabad, India), is the chairman of the Center for Inquiry, India, the former general secretary of the Indian Radical Humanist Association, and the author of Let Sanity Prevail, M. N. Roy: Radical Humanistand four other books.

Forced Into Faith: How Religion Abuses Children’s Rights

Enhanced by Zemanta


Female Circumcision

The following are images from thedailybeast.com which were taken during a female circumcision ceremony. They are images that powerfully attest to an ugly and awful form of religious child abuse that is still being practiced today. Photos speak more powerfully than words can here. (Via www.thebeattitude.com)

Midwives wait for their next circumcision victim of the 248 girls that were mutilated in Bandung, Indonesia, on April 23, 2006.  

Midwives wait for their next circumcision victim. One of the 248 girls that were mutilated in Bandung, Indonesia, on April 23, 2006.

A terrified Muslim girl resists as she is prepared to be mutilated.  

A terrified Muslim girl resists as she is prepared to be mutilated.

A young Muslim girl is comforted as she sits with her mother following her mutilation ceremony.  

A young Muslim girl is comforted as she sits with her mother following her mutilation ceremony.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Religion and Child Abuse News

I have just become aware of an important online resource:

Religion and Child Abuse News
An archive of news items related to child abuse or neglect, or infringement of children’s rights, in a religious context.

Enhanced by Zemanta


United Nations Wants To Regulate Free Speech Of Every Nation


In Praise of South Africa

Right to life takes precedence over the right to religion
February 20 2009 at 06:13AM
By Kanina Foss

A 12-year-old Jehovah’s Witness girl has received a life-saving blood transfusion that she did not want after a Johannesburg High Court order gave doctors the go-ahead.

The girl, who suffers from leukaemia, was admitted to Chris Hani-Baragwanath Hospital on Tuesday. Despite being told that a blood transfusion was needed to save her life, the girl and her parents refused to consent to the procedure.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that it’s against God’s will to take other people’s blood, or one’s own blood that has been stored, into one’s body.

The official website of Watchtower, a Jehovah’s Witness organisation to which The Star was referred by the Jehovah’s Witnesses of South Africa, says: “True Christians will not accept a blood transfusion. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God’s laws.”

The Gauteng Department of Health said doctors consulted the girl’s parents and church elders to explain the need for the transfusion. When their explanations were rejected, they brought an urgent application before the High Court on Wednesday.

The court order was issued on the same day, and the girl was given a transfusion immediately.

According to Department of Health spokesperson Phumelele Kaunda, the parents respected the court’s decision.

The girl is doing well.

SA Human Rights Commission chairperson Jody Kollapen said that in such cases, the right to life took precedence over the right to religion.

He said adults were regarded as fit to make informed decisions about their own bodies, but in the case of a child, state intervention was sometimes necessary.

South Africa should indeed be praised for doing the right thing – saving an innocent child’s life rather than giving in to the unfounded religious beliefs of her parents. It is a sad state of affairs when a child can be brainwashed into believing that death is preferable to a simpe blood transfusion procedure. We must not allow superstition to claim the lives of such children, and South Africa got it exactly right: the right to life takes precedence over the right to religion.

Enhanced by Zemanta


When Parents Call God Instead of the Doctor

By Deena Guzder Thursday, Feb. 05, 2009

kara_newman_0205

On Easter Sunday of 2008, 11-year-old Kara Neumann of Weston, Wisconsin, suffered waves of nausea as she lay motionless on her deathbed, too weak to walk or speak. Kara’s parents — both followers of the Unleavened Bread Ministries, an online church that shuns medical intervention — knelt in prayer beside their dying daughter. They did not call a doctor for help. A few hours later, Kara died of diabetes, a relatively common — and treatable — condition.

Within weeks, a Wisconsin state attorney brought charges of reckless endangerment against Kara’s parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. The couple protested on grounds of religious freedom, but Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Mr. and Mrs. Neumann to stand trial this spring. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison. Unleavened Bread Ministries immediately released a statement saying the couple is being unfairly punished for the “crime of praying.”

The Neumanns’ highly anticipated trial has sparked new debate in a long-running battle over faith healing in the United States. Under current Wisconsin law, a parent cannot be convicted of child abuse or negligent homicide if they can prove they genuinely believed that calling God, instead of a doctor, was the best option available for their child. The law is part of the legacy of the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which included a landmark exemption for parents who do not seek medical care for their children for religious purposes. While all states give social service authorities the right to intervene in cases of child neglect, criminal codes in 29 other states also provide additional protection for parents who forgo mainstream medical treatment….

Read the full Time.com Article…

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Genealogies of Ignorance: A Conversation on Childhood Indoctrination

Baptism of a child by affusion
Image via Wikipedia

In a previous post, titled, “My children are currently being raised Roman Catholic”, I brought up the question of childhood indoctrination and examined a Catholic woman’s justification for requiring her children to be indoctrinated into the Catholic Church. If you have not read that post then I suggest that you take a quick look at it to understand what follows.

This post prompted an interesting written exchange elsewhere between myself and a reader. Below I am reproducing that conversation, at least up to the point upon which it stands now, because it allows me to further explicate my views on this subject within the context of a dialog. The other person’s name and identity will remain anonymous (”Reader” will suffice as a designation), but I suspect that many other people share the same or similar views as this Reader does.

The Reader’s statements are presented as Reader. My responses are presented as Me.

Reader: Are not parents care-takers of their children? If they think it is in their best interest to introduce them to religion, despite what someone outside of their family thinks, is that any of our business?

Couldn’t we apply this same logic to a child’s diet? Education? Residence? Political beliefs? Overall attitude? We do not want robots; we want developed children from a loving environment. What better way to bestow our love by teaching our experiences to our children, rather than throwing them to “the wolves” with no understanding of what’s to come.

It is our charge to equip our children for the world to the best of our abilities; whether that means imparting our spiritual experiences, or neglecting their spiritual man.

To each his own.

Me: This entry is questioning whether it really IS in a child’s best interest to be not just ‘introduced’ to religion, but thoroughly indoctrinated in a religion regardless of what the child’s wishes may be. This is a far more serious than simply teaching a child one’s life or spiritual experiences.

Reader:

in·doc·tri·nate –verb

1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

Again: “It is our charge to equip our children for the world to the best of our abilities; whether that means imparting our spiritual experiences, or neglecting their spiritual man. To each his own.”

Please note that these are merely my opinions I’m expressing, so that perhaps you’ll understand a different perspective. I, in no way, want to provoke anyone or feel the need to be necessarily right or wrong in anyone’s eyes. I hope that was already understood.

Me: Okay…well, I understand your opinion but like I said earlier, my issue is with something that I see as far more serious than simply introducing children to religion or spiritual experiences. So, I’d be happy to hear your opinion on the specific issue of indoctrination.

Reader: Do you have children? If you think about it, on the converse–and btw, I am concluding that you are an atheist because of your name–what if your family was a family of atheists, but all of society believed in God and Christianity? Do you want us to shove our God down your children’s throats? And to tell you that you are not allowed to “indoctrinate” your children to believe there is no God?

Plus, in regards to your quote, “Essentially, the implication here is that children are not mature enough to make their own decisions when it comes to religion, so as a child that decision must be made for them. But if the decision is made for them throughout their childhood, how can one expect that same child to be fully equiped to make his or own decision once he or she is a full grown adult?”:

The fact of the matter is our children are not mature enough to make their own decisions. If my son made his own decisions, he would be playing all day instead of doing his homework. He would eat Gushers and Fruit Roll Ups and never any vegetables. He would spend his afternoons in swimming pools or at parks, instead of go to school. Our children need guidance from adults, not passive morons who think their children (or anyone’s children) should have the “right” to choose whatever they want. That’s why children do not vote until they are 18; that’s why they do not serve in the military until they’re 18 (unless they have permission); that’s why they don’t get tattoos, or piercings until 18. They are children and don’t know how to make decisions yet– but you said, how will they be fully equiped? They will be fully equiped if they are taught right from wrong. If they are shown what is overall good, and overall bad. Yes, some children are exposed to some religions that are bad for this country or bad for the world, but we do not have the right to be able to strip other people of their right to the first amendment– or do we? I am open to your opinion as well…

Me: To answer a couple of your points:

(1) I would never indoctrinate or approve of the indoctrination of children into believing there is no god. I am against any form of childhood indoctrination.

(2) The question regards whether child are mature enough to make their own decisions regarding religion, not everything in their daily life. This is different. This is telling a child what opinions he or she must hold. I doubt that many people would look approvingly on a set of parents that made their children swear to be Republicans. How is that different from making children swear that they believe Jesus rose from the dead and will punish unbelievers in hell?

(3) I am not interested in stripping people of any rights. And I am certainly not interested in passing laws against this. However, I do feel that it needs to be roundly and loudly criticized.

Reader: I do agree with you to a point. My parents taught me what they believed and I accepted it as a child. As an adult, I had the opportunity to reject what I was taught, and I did reject it for quite some time, until I decided that, after eight years of searching, it was right for me after all. I agree that it is wrong to tell someone what to believe, and to reject them if they do not believe it.

But it is not anyone’s right to tell anyone what they should be allowed to teach their children.

Just like it is wrong to go to Iraq and tell Iraqis how to believe or act, it is wrong for Americans to go into fellow Americans’ homes to tell them how to behave. Unfortunately, although these thoughts are “nice”, they are all quite moot points.

However, I appreciate how kind you’ve been while disagreeing with me. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to have differences in opinions, and I do respect that you are able to share your opinions without being patronizing.

Me: “But it is not anyone’s right to tell anyone what they should be allowed to teach their children.”

To an extent I would agree. However, surely we can imagine situations in which it is in the best interest of the child not to be taught certain things. Should parents be allowed to raise racist children? Maybe. How about teaching children that it is okay to perform acts of violence on another class of people? Some parents reject all medical science for religious reasons and force their children to reject medical treatment – even in life threatening situations.

The pertinent question, therefore, is not whether or not we can intervene on a child’s behalf but in what circumstances should we?

Reader: “The pertinent question, therefore, is not whether or not we can intervene on a child’s behalf but in what circumstances should we?”

Physical abuse. When a child’s life is in apparent danger, that is when someone else should step in. Otherwise, it is none of our business. Even if that’s annoying (which I know it is).

Me: I agree that physical abuse dictates that we must intervene on the child’s behalf. However, I do not agree that in cases of what I will call “mental abuse” that it is none of our business. It should be our business because this will have an affect on the child’s life and future. This is why Richard Dawkins calls childhood indoctrination a form of child abuse. Children are the future and it behooves us to know whether or not parents are teaching their children wrong, silly, stupid, or dangerous ideas.

I am not saying that in this case we have a right to physically intervene. I do believe in protecting certain freedoms. All that I am saying is that we should not shy away from criticizing such practices because we are afraid that it is none of our business.

Reader: I am not “afraid” that it is none of our business– it is none of our business. Who’s to say what’s right or wrong? Will it become a thing like in Germany when all Jews were wrong? When it was first only a mere hatred then hatred grown to genecide?

It is none of anyone’s business what religion I choose for myself or for my children– otherwise my rights are being tampered with.

Me: Your rights are only being tampered with if you are forced, through legislation or some other means, to do something contrary to what your stated rights are. I am not talking about forcing anything on anyone. However, watch a documentary like “Jesus Camp” and you might appreciate why I feel that how parents are indoctrinating their children should be, in general, society’s business.

Children that are taught to fear eternal hellfire or that the non-Christians will be tortured after death. Children that are taught to embrace the possibility that the end of the world may be at hand and that this is a good thing. This can and is in many cases traumatizing or has other negative psychological effects.

When ideas themselves being imposed on young and innocent children might constitute a form of mental child abuse then yes, it is our business to show concern and criticize the religious beliefs and institutions that encourage it.

Reader: No offense, but how do you know what will happen after death?

Me: I am not claiming to know what happens after death. But I do know that there is absolutely no evidence for any of the claims I mentioned in my previous note. None. Not even close. And that’s part of the problem. Children do not recognize this. And what results is a genealogy of ignorance and an inability to properly reason about the reality of religious claims.

You know, lost amid all this talk about parents rights is the even more obvious right of a child to a proper and beneficial education. There are thousands, if not millions, of children being taught right now that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that scientific knowledge should be demonized. There are children being taught that homosexuality is a sin and abnormal. There are children that are being denied comprehensive sex-education because their parents fervently believe in abstinence only. Etc.

*

That is the where the conversation currently stands. Do you agree with Reader on any points? Would you have answered Reader differently than I did?

[Cross posted at AnAtheist.Net]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


“My children are currently being raised Roman Catholic”

Richard Collins asked parents in an online forum whether or not it is right to force their religious beliefs on children. The first response came from a lady with the handle, “rabbitgirl”:

My children are currently being raised Roman Catholic. IF they wish to change faith or, indeed, turn away from any faith at all, in the future then that will be their choice and they can follow their own hearts at that time.

My children ARE taught about all the different (major) religions of the world….. indeed I find the whole subject very interesting and know a goodly amount about different faiths myself anyway. Being a Catholic DOES NOT prevent one from embracing another faith any some time in the future and I would support my children if that was their decision. BUT I am not doing them any harm in raising them in my own faith at this time. They attend a Catholic school and get an excellent education, they attend mass on Sundays (and other holy days) which takes up an hour of their day (I fail to see what harm this does to them), my daughter has opted to be an altar server, my daughter has made her First Holy Communion and in a couple of years time will be due to make her confirmation. At that time it will be HER choice as to whether or not she makes an adult commitment to my faith, she may wish to defer that decision (many young Catholics do) or she may decide to turn away at that time. I know I did at her age……….. but I returned to the Church when I was older having investigated some other options.

Such a response, I am afraid, is probably not at all uncommon. This woman wants to maintain an appearance of open-mindedness and fairness, but at the same time she is not willing to let go of the control she asserts over her children when it comes to making them go through the entire Catholic indoctrination process. Her children do not get a choice until they are older, by which point they have already been firmly immersed within Catholic doctrine and beliefs. Notice how she says that “at that time [after confirmation] it will be HER choice as to whether or not she makes an adult commitment to my faith” (emphasis added). Well, gee, you have already forced the child to make a commitment to your faith. What kind of choice is that, really?

In other words, “you can decide whether or not to commit to my faith but only after you have formally committed and initiated yourself into my Church (in this case, the confirmation ceremony).”

Essentially, the implication here is that children are not mature enough to make their own decisions when it comes to religion, so as a child that decision must be made for them. But if the decision is made for them throughout their childhood, how can one expect that same child to be fully equiped to make his or own decision once he or she is a full grown adult?

Imagine that this women wasn’t talking about Catholicism but, rather, said:

“I am going to raise my child as a racist until she grows up, at which point she is free to make her own choices concerning which types of people she wants to hate.”

Or how about:

“I am going to raise my child as a right-wing Republican until she grows up, at which point she is free to choose her own political orientation.”

How are these any different than saying, “I am going to raise my child as a Catholic until she grows up, at which point she is free to choose her own religion”?

Now, I know what you might be thinking. One might be tempted to simply dismiss my examples as ludicrous. No mother would ever, for example, raise a child to be racist. I might have thought so too, at least until I read a book on the role of women in organized hate movements (specifically racist organizations). The book is called Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. The author, Kathleen Blee, interviewed nearly 40 women who are involved in various capacities in different white supremacist groups. There are many shocking revelations in this book in terms of the way these people think about themselves and others. However, for the purpose of this blog I would simply like to highlight a single passage that is related to the problem of childhood indoctrination.

The following is a direct quote from one of the racist mothers that Blee interviewed for her book:

[I took] them to the dedication of the white race. … We dressed the kids up in fatigues and little hats because I didn’t have time to make little robes, and we took them and we had them dedicated [to white supremacism. … It's my responsibility to train these two [but] they can make their own choice when they come of age.

I hope my children will be involved or at least understand why their father and I are involved but I will not force anything on my children.

I really can’t say whether or not my children will join [our Nazi group]. They will be raised National Socialist with racial pride, family values, and morals. (pg. 48)

It is obvious to me that we have here the same logic for two different forms of indoctrination. How much different is imagining children in little white Klan robes, really, from imagining children in little white church robes? Sure, the ideologies have vastly different moral implications but the effect here is the same and, at least to me, equally distasteful. What is distasteful is that the child is forced into a particular ideology beginning at a time in the child’s life when he or she is not mature enough to thoroughly understand and analyze the issues with these ideologies.

One can say that raising little racists is far worse in terms of the moral consequences than raising little Catholics. I agree. Being an extreme racist is socially more problematic than being a Catholic. However, the implications are the same and equally disturbing. Children all over the world are being raised to think a certain way (at least with regards to certain issues) rather than being raised how to think. In a world where religion is a polarizing force in which absurd and unprovable claims are the central issue, this is a problem. It is a problem for getting along in a global society fractured by competing and equally baseless religious claims.

As Bill Maher concludes in his film Religulous, we need more doubt and less indoctrination in this world.

[This post originally appeared in two separate posts on AnAtheist.Net here and here]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Want to shake off your faith? Try reading your Bible…

I have always thought that perhaps if more Christians actually read their Bible closely they would be less inclined to be Christians, given some of the stuff that is in there.

theBEattitude writes how 32 years of being indoctrinated into Christianity suddenly came crumbling down when he examined more obscure parts of the Bible in more modern translations:

About eight years ago I purchased a New Living Translation Bible (NLT). I viewed this as a great resource since the verses were so much easier to read and interpret. About a year ago I wanted to deepen my Biblical literacy. So I began reading and studying many books of the Old Testament I had always ignored in my King James Bible.

Thus began my slow rejection of the Christian faith. As I studied the many horrific and ridiculous teachings, I soon realized that I had wasted 32 years of my life believing in a fairy tale. Churches do a great job of ignoring the ugly parts of the Bible. And with the book written in a confusing ancient dialect, it makes their job easy. (more…)

So, maybe the Bible itself is the best cure for Christian indoctrination. If anything, we can marvel at the sheer irony of this and congratulate theBeattitude for having the courage to reject Christianity despite the intense family and social pressures to conform.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]