You cannot end the religious indoctrination of vulnerable children

- Image via Wikipedia
People argue that parents and religious entities will not cease the practice of preying on vulnerable children to maintain their tribes. Religious indoctrination of children has been going on for centuries and is a universal phenomenon. Like child battering, it is a syndrome protected by an extensive protective meme complex. Parents were most likely indoctrinated, making them excellent practitioners of childhood religious grooming. They know all the techniques and evasions to use on their own kids. Likewise, adults who were physically punished will strenuously defend this cruel treatment and turn around and physically punish their own children.
Related articles
- Salvation is not a legitimate argument for indoctrinating children (endhereditaryreligion.com)
- Who Cares About Atheists? (camelswithhammers.com)
- Quiverfull Atheists (dangeroustalk.net)
- Questions for Those Raising Their Kids Without Religion (atheistrev.com)
- Indoctrinating Children In a Religious Faith is Abusive (atheistrev.com)
- “Aha!” Moments (new.exchristian.net)
Blasphemy day — a new tradition
The following is a gift from my facebook friend, Torbjorn Nordhagen
A Life of Blasphemy or, My Thoughts on International Blasphemy Day
Share
Yesterday at 8:58pmTomorrow, September 30, 2009, is International Blasphemy Day. The date was chosen to mark the four-year anniversary of the Muslim “Danish cartoon riots.” Rather than merely fire off another one of my pithy facebook status updates (although I reserve the right to do this as well), I thought I’d write down a few of my thoughts on the event itself and my own feelings on it.
From the official site: “International Blasphemy Day is not just a day. It is a movement to dismantle the wall which exists between religion and criticism.”
My guess is that almost anyone reading this note knows something of my background: raised Evangelical Christian, went through a protracted and very painful period of deconversion from late 2003 to mid-2005. I’ve long maintained the line touted by such “new atheist” luminaries as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens that religion should be subject to criticism. In all honesty, I’ve wrestled with formulating my own position on this: how to be candid and honest about one’s opinions while still maintaining cordial and amicable relations with friends and family members who are of faith. And yes, at times I was rather leery of the “new atheist” movement.
Today, however, I am a proud “new” atheist. Having come to my views through no small struggle I hold that freethought and religious skepticism is precious. It is a blood-bought treasure of Western civilization. Consider this: at the time of the American Revolution, Maryland had an anti-blasphemy statute. If you spoke blasphemy against the Holy Trinity three times (the magic number, three) and were of sound mind, the sentence was death without benefit of clergy. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The bloody history of the suppression of religious dissent is well-known and needs little elaborating, but here we go anyway:
The Medieval Inquisition was instituted in the early 13th century (if memory serves) by Pope Innocent III for the purpose of persecuting “heretics.” The focus was southern Europe, where trade across the Mediterranean had engendered the rise of the Cathari in southern France (also known as the Albigensians). The heinous Albigensian Crusade down the Rhone and into northern Italy was the result.
The European Witch Craze began in the late 15th century and raged throughout the sixteenth, mostly in northern Europe–especially the “Holy” Roman Empire (modern-day Germany) and Scotland. Around the same time that the Spanish Inquisition revived the bloodshed and madness in Spain (and then Portugal, and it spread from both places–even to Goa and Malabar with the Portuguese). The Salem Witch Trials of 1692 came at the very tail end of the appalling affront to human dignity. The vast majority of the victims of the Witch Craze were women. The Inquisition in Spain targeted Jews and conversos, derisively known as “Marranos” (pigs)–Jews who had converted to Catholicism to escape persecution. Spain’s remnant Muslim population was also not exempt. The Portuguese targeted Jews in Portugal and “heretic” Christians of the Syrian Church in India.
These are only two particularly notorious historic examples. Today, Ireland has a blasphemy law, as does Afghanistan–proof positive that the medieval streak runs deep in both Catholicism and Islam alike.
Source: http://www.blasphemyday.com/
But hang on, friends, because we haven’t even got to the meat of the argument yet. And for that, we must consider the source: the sacra, the canonical texts of the religions themselves. For purposes of brevity and salience I will confine my remarks to Christianity, as I am less familiar with Islam’s sacra for obvious reasons (never having been a Muslim).
You see, the barbaric and medieval notion currently enshrined in the jurisprudence of the Republic of Ireland has its source solidly in the Bible itself. I am referring, of course, to the Unpardonable Sin. In the words attributed to Christ:
28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; 29 but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— 30 because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”
~Mark 3:28-30, NKJV.Luke concurs:
10 “And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.
~Luke 12:10, NKJV.Source: www.biblegateway.com
But what does it MEAN to blaspheme the Holy Spirit? The pastoral opinion regnant in most circles (to my knowledge) is that “blaspheming the Holy Spirit” is the rejection of the Gospel–the perpetual, ongoing, ultimate rejection of the work and mission of the Holy Spirit.
Whether you accept this definition or take the passages in question at slightly more face value and maintain that this means a verbal denunciation of the Holy Spirit, the mentality that this doctrine engenders and its ramifications are very clear and, for me as a skeptic, extremely noxious. Whatever interpretation you adopt, you are still left with an explicit doctrine of the sacred that precludes criticism–or at the very least, criticism beyond a certain point. In other words, these passages are the heart and soul of the anti-dissent doctrine in Christianity.
However I would submit to you, dear readers, that even discarding these passages–supposing for a moment that they were never written, or were found to be apocryphal in some way–that the problem remains. And the problem goes deeper than Christianity, to encompass certainly all of the three major monotheistic religions. The reason is simple: in Christopher Hitchens’s words, all of these religions enshrine a doctrine of god as Celestial Dictator, a kind of Divine Big Brother who monitors your every thought, word and deed–and finds you wanting. He can and does convict you of “thought-crime”–at least in Christianity. In Judaism and in Islam he demands a series of ritual observances and practices–certainly far more than in most Christian denominations.
Hitchens goes so far as to liken at least the Christian god to North Korea’s Kim Il-Sung, the “Great Leader,” and his son Kim Jong-il, the “Dear Leader”: both of which have been deified through Kim Il-Sung’s elaborate personality cult. North Korea, like the Abrahamic religions, extensively monitors the actions and deeds (they’re not quite up to the level of sophisticated thought-surveillance, to be fair, but watch out) of its citizens. Dissenters are silenced. There are slave-labor camps for not only dissenters but FAMILIES of dissenters and escapees. Indeed, the parallels are positively chilling.
And what is the ultimate fate of dissenters and blasphemers? While in North Korea the government has absolute power over its citizenry only in life, the god of the Bible and the Qu’ran has no such limitations. The Qu’ran speaks of the “fire whose fuel is men and stones.” I’m rather more familiar with the Bible’s stance:
[Christ speaking]:
28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
~Matthew 10:28, NKJV.
[In the words of John of Patmos]:
15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
~Revelation 20:15, NKJV.
8 But the cowardly, unbelieving,[a] abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
~Revelation 21:8, NKJV.
Source: www.biblegateway.com
There you have it: by failing to accept the gift of salvation offered by the meek-and-mild savior, those of us who do not believe merit eternal perdition. So much for a loving god. The first conclusion that I draw from this is that it is religious morality that is fundamentally immoral, not atheistic morality. Secondly, dear readers, I propose that under this system those of us who do not believe are ALREADY COMMITTING BLASPHEMY. There is NOTHING that we can say, do, write or depict tomorrow or any other day which can further compound the blasphemy of our very lives of unbelief under such a system.I am all for an International Blasphemy Day. But we must use it as a reminder of the true scope and scale of blasphemy. We must remember that blasphemy does not solely consist of pithy and humorous slogans and witticisms, of provocative pictures and images. There is no need to state “I deny the Holy Spirit” when our very LIVES are lived in denial of the EXISTENCE of the same!
So tomorrow, if you wake up in a time and place in history where you have the freedom to criticize the prevalent religion in your society if you so choose–be very thankful and be very humble. I don’t care if you’re a theist, atheist or whatever–free speech is precious. Dissent is precious.
And happy International Blasphemy Day, to believers and unbelievers alike! Remember, even if you ARE a believer, you’re not exempt–there will always be other believers of other sects and religions who find you a heretic or unbeliever in your own right.
Cheers, all, ~Tor
Note: The illustration is a portion of manuscript, which is identified by Wiki as Armenian and contains the passage from Mark concerning blasphemy.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Blasphemy Day (tuibguy.com)
Richard says: How children view the indoctrination experience

- Image by Napalm filled tires via Flickr
I have often written about the narratives people who are struggling to recover from their religious experiences post on the web. Many of the narratives contain common themes. For example, children are often puzzled and confused and don’t know why the answers they get don’t make any sense. (A well known failing of religious dogma.) Those who manage to break free usually do so when they go away to college, and very often the college is a Christian institution. You can read all the apologetics you like, but if you want to get to the truth of the religious experience the apostates are the best source. For the simple reason that they have spotted the weaknesses and after they make the decision to leave they have nothing to lose. In fact I think many are happy to blow up religion for the benefit of others who are still locked in their self imposed cages.
The following snips are clipped from a web site that posts personal narratives (names omitted) of people recovering from religion. By this point they are adults or young adults.
1.
As I am sure, most, if not all, of you know, I am struggling with the fact that I will have to completely change my life and will be labeled as the outsider by all those people with whom I have built close friendships. There is still a lot of confusion, but every day I am realizing that rational, reasonable, concrete truth is what I long for. I no longer want to give myself over to imaginary, confusing, irrational ideas that only immerse the believer in a pit of fear and guilt.
++++++
2.
I had to memorize and recite Bible verses until I was 13 years old. I went to all the camps, knew all the songs, and probably got “saved,” literally, 6 times. I think I might have even been baptized twice. I was a good little Christian soldier. I remember going around telling stories to my childhood friends about our imminent doom if we didn’t “ask Jesus to come in to our hearts.” I tried to save them. I look back now and wonder, “Save them from what? Happiness?”
I remember specifically sitting in Sunday School when I was around the age of 8 and the teacher was yammerin’ away at some story. Then he said something that whipped me around. He said, “That’s why putting any kind of Christian, or Jesus-like bumper sticker on your car is not a good idea. Because if we do or say something that we shouldn’t while we are driving, we don’t anyone to know that we are Christians.”
++++++
3.
Our Sunday school teachers and youth pastors would always encourage us to bring our friends from school to church, but I never wanted to. First of all, I didn’t have any friends at school, because I was taking to heart the whole “You are in this world, but not of it” ideology. I also took on God’s view that anybody who was not a believer was “wicked.” So, anybody at school was to me a potential convert, but nobody for me to actually be friends with, other than to potentially witness to. But I didn’t want to bring these people to church, because church was my safe haven, free from the evil, evil world. I realize now, looking back, that I would even try to figure out if my teachers were Christians or not, and if I determined by what they said or did that they must not be, I don’t think I learned from them as well because I would subconsciously discredit what they — or anybody who wasn’t a Christian, for that matter — had to say. This indoctrination was very subtle and I didn’t even realize I had this mentality and how unhealthy and off-base it was at the time.
+++++
4.
My faith never grew stronger or weaker throughout the years. I believed every word was true and never doubted any of it. Sometimes I’d worry more about the fate of my soul (what if I died right now and didn’t have a chance to ask forgiveness for my latest sin?); sometimes it would slip my mind that my soul was in constant danger. It wasn’t until I got to college that I questioned any of it at all.
+++++
5.
Despite the fact that I have freed my own mind from the shackles of belief, the venom of Christianity still flows through my life. In the mind of my beloved wife, I am now the enemy – to be hated and feared. I am less than human because I cannot bring myself to accept that it is right to send most people in the world to a lake of eternal fire and torment.
If there is anything I’d like to say in closing, it would be that Christianity isn’t harmless. It really is that bad. It may be too late for me to live free of the damage it can cause. Perhaps by sharing this, I can impress upon those for whom it is not too late the importance of not allowing this hideous disease of the mind to gain any foothold in your life.
+++++
6.
The first recollection I have of realizing something was wrong was when I first legitimately considered the question “where did God come from?” I was probably 13 years old and assumed somebody would have an answer to this fairly basic question. I posed it to my Mom and she had nothing to give me. I asked other people with a fair amount of shame, assuming that I was either not supposed to be asking these things, or at the least, I was stupid for not knowing the answer. It didn’t take long to realize that this was, in fact, a GOOD question to ask, and that began the unraveling of the tall tales I’d been fed. Unlike Santa Claus, for which I have no recollection of the time the news was broken to me, this one seemed a bit more important, even in my barely adolescent mind, since the stakes were quite a bit higher. I mean I would still get presents under the tree, so no big loss there, but on the other hand, there was the vague understanding that I was going to die and NOT come back to life.
+++++
7.
I grew up going to a Methodist church every Sunday. We did Sunday school and the worship service. I learned all the stories, and knew all the songs. I didn’t hate it, but I don’t think I ever “got it” either. It just seemed like something you did. Of course there’s a god, we go and talk about him every Sunday.
In Junior High, one of our coaches told me about Evangelism Explosion and then took me through the story of sin and redemption. He lead me through the sinners prayer and told me I had made a great decision. I still didn’t really get what was going on though. That was 1991.
++++
8.
So, under the pressure of my mother, who was contantly switching churches like other’s change their socks, I got to see how every one of them was correct, just, righteous, and surely the apple of God’s eye. All “those others” were wrong, they didn’t have Christianity right. My education was steering me to ask, ask, ask…then to follow it up with introspection. Finally, a crucial moment came when I was about 13 or 14. I decided I could only trust my own judgement on God and faith, and not anyone else’s. I rejected the idea of God. My belief system came crashing down on me.
++++
My first recollection of religion was being in Baptist Bible Camp at about age 5. It was much like any bible camp, run by people who think they know what God/Jesus are, but usually incapable of providing a lot of explanation. I remember being told all these wonderful things about God/Jesus and I don’t remember seeing him anywhere — certainly not on television — and I asked where he was? The young woman pointed up in the air. I looked up and she was pointing at the ceiling. I thought she wasn’t making any sense. I asked if he was upstairs (in the sanctuary), and she said no, up there in heaven. I still didn’t get it and thought that she meant God was in the ceiling. For a 5 year old, the thought of God being in the ceiling was scary and confusing. It lead to some other forms of mental paralysis as time marched on. Later, when I approached the subject again and asked where God was, the finger pointed up in the air again but this time we were outside and it was almost dark. The person was pointing up at the stars and said that God was in heaven. I asked which star was heaven and I got some obtuse, confusing explanation. I really thought these people were nuts. I decided to stop asking where God was because it was obvious that no one knew. I was born a skeptic and the reality is that my position never changed throughout my life no matter how hard I tried, and boy did I try.
++++++
WHY CHRISTIAN KIDS LEAVE THE FAITH By Tom Bisset, link is to Amazon.com
The title is a little misleading. The case studies Tom Bisset offers are actually about young adults. Children as a rule are commonly not offered the option of dropping out. It does occur in the more liberal denominations, but would be rare for evangelicals. Bisset is a Baptist.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The power of prayer (guardian.co.uk)
The god of abuse

The thesis of this article has often crossed my mind and so I was happy to find this post at exChristian.net. I think Fuego is right on with the analysis he presents. Several conclusions flow from his argument. First off, people who have been trapped in religion and had their reason attenuated or destroyed deserve our understanding even as they infuriate us with their stubborn obtuse blindness. How do psychologists treat people with Stockholm syndrome? What works, what does not. If we are going to make a difference with people who are effected, need we all become clinical psychologists? There has to be a more modest approach than that, so we should be looking at the literature and developing guidelines for approaching our friends and family members. Simply trying to reason with them clearly does not work. Following up on this I searched for some advice and will publish a separate post that seems to have some sage advice.
By Fuego
I’ve been trying to figure out why it is so difficult to get believers to even listen to why we left Christianity. Even though some of us experienced decades of solid Christian belief, we are dismissed as having never believed, or never “truly” believed. No matter what evidence we bring, no matter if we are aggressive or kind, there always seems to be an invisible wall of condescending resistance to any criticism or evidence against Christianity.
This may not be a new concept to some of you, but it all fell together for me today. The pattern so clearly fits with another relationship pattern among humans that it startled me. Christianity is a form of abuser/victim codependency.
I know the word codependent seems way overused, but hear me out. Codependency is the perpetuation of an abusive relationship by two or more people, each of whom derives enough emotional support from the relationship that it outweighs the strife. In fact the strife itself fuels the emotional intensity of the relationship. Sure there are good times of singing, music, friends, and even an intense feeling of God’s presence. This is what kept us coming back and enduring the abusive side of the religion.
“Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?”Right away, I anticipate that believers reading this will say “Abuse? What abuse? My God is the Shepherd of my soul, the Lily of the Valley, the bright Morning Star. He doesn’t abuse me. He may discipline me, but he does that because he loves me.” Many of us felt the same way, and clung to God just as fervently as any believers do today. The abuse I speak of is sometimes physical, often verbal, and always mental/emotional.
Just like in a human-to-human relationship, a believer invests trust, time, money, and emotion into the faith until the religion itself defines normality, and that person becomes quite unwilling to believe anything negative about the religion. The abuse may come through fellow believers or authorities in the religion, as well as in self-abuse over by guilt imposed by the religion. But ultimately the abuse comes from the God of the Bible. The believer is conditioned to think that the abuse is deserved due to his or her inherent sinfulness. Some go so far as to mutilate their own flesh because their natural desires conflict with the religious ideal and therefore must be subjugated to prove loyalty to God. Jesus himself said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matt 5:29)
But even if the believer becomes desperate enough to want to quit the relationship, the circle of codependency is sealed by the fear of what will happen if the believer leaves the “relationship” (damnation).
To read the remainder of this article go to exchristian.net:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2009/07/god-of-abuse.html

- Image by HA! Designs – artbyheather via Flickr
Forum member writes:
Richard, you would like us to believe that some of the “infanticide, murder, rape, slavery, sexual abuse and abandonment” of children that has occurred throughout history is the result of Christianity.
+++++++
I thought I drew the distinction that the historic practice of Christianity using the bible as guidance certainly did not work powerfully against these practices, and still doesn’t, so far as we can observe. The academic study of child welfare in history by Nick Frost contains a limited number of pages and even so you will find many references to church authorities (Cardinals and other church authorities offering advice for the most part). Most of the advice was counterproductive to the welfare interests of children and self serving on the part of religion. A search for the bible or “cardinal” will turn up many references.
As much as anything children in history lived a nightmare existence, if they even survived, because of superstition and ignorance. Much of the superstition was the result of organized religion just as it is today. Search the anthology for references to possession, devils, demons, and the like. The one remedy humans hit upon that destroys superstition is the scientific method and right now, today, the superstitious are fighting reason with a passion. Did you read any of the document?
With reference to the biblical quote: Suffer the children to come…. one section of the Frost anthology (p. 36) specifically mentions this, but has a different interpretation. It is usually represented as a way to present Jesus as a champion of children and is meant to enhance his standing. The alternate interpretation is that this is Jesus laying on his hands to perform an exorcism because children were all thought to be naturally wicked. Exorcism was a common Near Eastern practice according to the reference.
In modern times the dogma of original sin is going strong and has a vocal and wealthy supporter in James Dobson. He is probably responsible for more child abuse cases in the United States than any other single person. Just a wild guess reading what he writes and based on the fact that he earns tens of millions of dollars each year on his book sales. Devoted followers believe his evil theories and defend him against all comers. He was a confidant of George W. Bush. Dobson is not alone and the prospect of the U S Senate ratifying the UN Convention on the rights of the Child has the right livid at the thought of state laws finally putting an end to their child battering.
On the subject of defining a Christian I believe your definition is commonly expressed but very broad. I have a lot of problems with the way the various sects go about *being* Christian and the disparity really is another argument for atheism. Surely, an all powerful supernatural being could have inspired holy texts clear enough that everyone would sign up to the same creed. But that didn’t happen, obviously. It might help if more Christians spoke to their fellow Christians about their behavior. For example:
On March 27, 2009, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor of Britain told the BBC that atheists are not “fully human.” This created an uproar in Britain. Then, on May 21, 2009, at the induction of his successor, he called atheism “the greatest of evils.” He continued by blaming all wars on atheists. Murphy-O’Connor is the leading Roman Catholic official in Great Britain. This is really nothing new. In one of his radio addresses aimed at children Pope John Paul told them he was saddened that some people rejected Jesus. Sorry, but we have a perfect right to our non-belief and it does not make us inferior in any way.
Here is the Cardinal speaking:
“If you leave out God, then you’re not fully human because you’re not fully human if you leave out God”. -Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Conner
Nothing like tautologies to prove how well you understand logical thinking.
A Christian? Where were all the Christians that could have jumped up and protested? I don’t find the Pope leading that pack. Did anyone on this list send a comment to the BBC, Guardian, or The Independent? Silence equals consent.
In Praise of South Africa
Right to life takes precedence over the right to religion
February 20 2009 at 06:13AM
By Kanina FossA 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.
Having a Relationship with an Imaginary God

- Image via Wikipedia
A forum participant writes:
It is rather a relationship with a loving God who desires to know them and show them truths of the Bible in their everyday lives. It is about understanding that acceptance is not based on performance but on the very existance of that relationship. If I did not teach what I believe to be true and so very important, eternally important, I would be remiss as a parent.
++++++++++++
Hold up there! First of all you cannot provide a single shred of evidence to show there is a god. Let alone a Hebrew god of the bible (assuming you are Christian). We cannot accept such imaginings as justification for parent’s actions. Prove there is a god — then maybe we will listen to you.
Children should only be taught the truth of the natural world, not the wild postulations of the supernatural. You do not know there is a god. You simply have decided to believe there is a god. If this gives you comfort and satisfaction, well and good you are entitled to follow your conscience. It does not mean you are entitled to infect your children with your delusional beliefs.
Do you understand the difference? Making crucial life decisions based on unproven beliefs is highly irresponsible. The principle of freedom of religion only goes so far — the minute harm is caused by a belief in religion your rights are abrogated — null and void. Teaching vulnerable children supernatural myths and unfounded religious dogma is harmful. You can couch your misbegotten program with all the sentiments of love you so choose, that only makes your actions more reprehensible. Parents that truly love their children respect them as persons and allow them to make there own choices to suit themselves.
If we are going to suffer harm, wouldn’t we all rather be wounded by someone that hates us than by someone who loves us? You are trampling on your children’s religious freedom.
Genealogies of Ignorance: A Conversation on Childhood Indoctrination

- 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]
Older Posts »





![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=2acca8cb-37b5-44f1-9686-d4f876999868)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=95fe829c-9b33-4ae3-86b6-11bf1bee1b9c)




![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e88d35e8-fdb5-4ae1-9685-b6ad069db3a6)

