The cancer of intolerance and how to fight it

Vortigern99 - All I can really say is that if you can't discern the difference between a parental warning not to play in traffic, swim in crocodile infested waters or play with loaded hanguns and teaching your child the explicit details of the eternal suffering & damnation in hell that awaits if the child should commit a "sin", such as abortion or homosexuality, then you have no place raising children.

Think about it.

 

LostOnHoth, all I can say in response is that to persons who believe in the torments of hell, the dangers of sin are just as real and present as those of traffic, poison, etc. -- and moreover, carry eternal consequences. I'm not saying that I personally believe in such things, but religious views are protected by the US Constitution (and by most other Western nations' founding documents), and no one has the right to prevent a parent from passing on those views to their own children. Once more, no one can disprove the reality of hell; therefore it cannot be definitively proven to be harmful or "abusive" to teach children about it. In fact, if hell is real, it's arguable that it would be abusive not to pass on knowledge of it -- and how to avoid it -- to one's children.

(And hey, BTW, thanks for calling me "Vortigern99". I can't access that account at the moment, and am at something of a disadvantage with my current, "newbie" user ID. )

 

No worries mate.

I understand your point and it is a valid one. However, in my view whether "hell" is real or not is immaterial to the question of whether some forms of religious indoctrination amount to a form of child abuse. What leads to everlasting torment in hell? The answer is sin. What is sin? Sin is defined by religious scripture, right? Something is sinful if the Bible says it is so. Abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, lust, greed, pride, gluttony etc etc are all sins. In my view, "the torments of hell" as representing the consequences of sin as defined by the religious faith of the child's parents are matters which the child should have the opportunity to learn for himself/herself at an age when the child is old enough to form his or her own view. That is without the domination of fear, which may lead to mental trauma and psychological harm.

In my view, there is a big conceptual difference between the risk of harm of playing on a busy road and the risk of harm of coveting your friend's lunchbox or having naughty thoughts about other boys or girls. Being hit by a car is a direct physical threat and not necessarily a risk which is appropriate to leave a child to form its own views on. Being killed by a car on the road is not a matter of "faith". You are not being asked to accept a way of life.

As I said, there is evidence to demonstrate that religious instruction which centres upon "fear mongering" as described in previous posts at an early age leads to trauma in children and eventually the need for therapy. Richard Dawkins' book highlights some of this evidence, including anectodes from christians who required such therapy as a result of their religious upbringing. This is what is meant by religious indoctrination amounting to a form of child abuse.

 

Let's not forget the "hell house" extreme. There's a big difference between telling a kid not to play with guns and making them look at photographs of gunshot victims.

 

Except Dawkins isn't the only one who says things like that. He's simply the most vocal.

Go back and look at the links I gave to his web site, and look at the comments that are posted. There are quite a few people there who go beyond Dawkins' use of the term and who insist that it is outright child abuse, and suggest that parents should face legal or civil penalties.

That's specifically why I pointed out that it's not just how his argument itself comes across to people on the other side, but also how it can be abused by others on Dawkins' side. Even if Dawkins himself doesn't call for taking children away from religious parents, there are others who will and do build upon his arguments to make such claims.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Yes, and there will always been people like that on the internet.

I think one thing that we are all skirting and that is when it is in the best interests of the child to be removed from religious parents - specifically Christian Scientists. There have been a number of cases where the child has died due to the beliefs of the parents.

At what point does it become intolerance and at what point is it in the best interest of the child?

 

If religious parents are harming a child the child should be taken away. That includes physical and mental abuse. The same would go for an atheist parent. If an atheist parent told their child there is no hope, there is no life after death, you simply cease to exist, you and everything are meaningless. (I'm not saying atheists do that or believe all of that) That could harm a child, instilling that sort of fear and lack of hope. If the child became dangerously depressed over having been told he has no purpose would anyone support taking the child to a church or any other religious body?

 

^ ^ ^ You know, that's a good point. Telling a child for certain there is no afterlife -- that we turn to dust and all our hopes and dreams evaporate into nothingness -- is just as "fear-instilling" as the story of hell. It's arguably worse, since in the story of hell there is an explicit hope for salvation away from and out of hell.

 

Nihilism is not an intrinsic trait of atheism, and I don't think telling a child there's no life after death is intrinsically depressing. Personally I think it makes this life more meaningful, but that's besides the point of the thread.

I would absolutely not support a child being taken to a church if he became depressed over the lack of an afterlife -- not the least reason being, who decides which denomination of which religion?

 

And burning forever in hell for not going to church or obeying your parents is not a intrinsic trait of Christianity, but some Christians believe that. I don't think telling a child there is a place of eternal torment for those that reject Gods salvation is as derpressing as saying there is no life after death and you would cease to exist. But it is a matter of opinion, more importantly the childs opinion. If the child is negatively effected by his parents telling him there is no afterlife is it not just as damaging as the hell and brimstone talk?

An athiest parent can damage a child with their beliefs just like any religions beliefs could.

Give the child basic information on the beliefs of religions. Let the child find a belief that gives him hope and does not endanger him. If the child is to young to make a decision on religion is he also to young to make a decision on lack of religon?

 

Not true. Maybe all denominations don't agree on what exactly is a hell-worthy transgression, but the threat of damnation in Hell IS an intrinsic trait of Christianity.

Only because of your cultural background. In some cultures, particularly ones which believe in reincarnation, non-existence after death is the highest goal for which they strive.

The non-existence of the self is a more difficult notion to grasp, and maybe a little scary as a knee-jerk reaction, but it's a neutral notion, whereas eternal torment is a threat, and pure fearmongering.

A child doesn't know what's good for him or her. That's the whole point of age of consent laws. Up to a certain age, people with more life experience -- and ideally more perspective -- are supposed to be acting in the best interests of the child, as the child doesn't know what his/her best interests are.

No, that's silly. Lack of religion is the default, and not something they're "making a decision on."

Most children don't decide up until a certain age what college they're going to go to, because they're not ready. "Lack of college" is the default and doesn't mean that they will not choose to attend college. And when they do, their choice is informed.

Likewise religion. Just because a child is not indoctrinated into a religion does not automatically mean they are indoctrinated against religion.

Although I do contend that if people were allowed to reach, say, the age of 16 without being told all their lives about the tenets of any particular religion, they'd be no more inclined to believe in any given religion than in the tooth fairy.

 

Actually there are some denominations of Christianity that do not belive in a hell, I believe there is a hell.

So it will be okay for the child to be scared by no longer existing simply because he will get use to it? But it is not okay for a child to be scared by being told he may end up in hell? There both scary to children. If hell talk to children is wrong, so is becoming nothingness. Having everything you are cease to be is no more a neutral notion than hell. Telling a child, "When you die you will be gone forever." is no different than, "When you die you will burn in hell." They are both fearmongering.

So if a child says he is scared by being told there is no God or life after death it's okay because he doesn't know whats best for him. But if he is scared by being told he may go to Hell it's just plain wrong? Atheism can be just as damaging to a child as any other religion.

There is no such thing as lack of religion. You may not be part of any organized religion but whatever you believe in your mind is your religion. Everyone who lives and has ever lived has a religion. Some simply refuse to acknowledge they have it when they really do. If someone doesn't believe in God it is part of their religion. If someone doesn't believe in anything that is their religion. There is no lack of religion as you say it. A child already has a personal religion.

Not informing them about other religions for all their childhood is imposing another religion on them. They will have been indoctrinated by the religion of No-Religion. Childhood is the part of life where the mind is open and easier to be taught. That is why children can learn languages better in their childhood. If you take a child never mention any of the tenents of any particular religion they will most likely grow up to have no religion? Why? It's not because they are informed now and know better. It's because they have been taught not to have religion. By not teaching children of religous beliefs one is imposing a belief in them still. Children learn from their parents, if their parents do not show that having religion is important they won't think it is when they are older.

If a the child had never been told about any colleges when he was young would the child later in life feel it would be important to even

 

There is no such thing as lack of religion. You may not be part of any organized religion but whatever you believe in your mind is your religion. Everyone who lives and has ever lived has a religion. Some simply refuse to acknowledge they have it when they really do. If someone doesn't believe in God it is part of their religion. If someone doesn't believe in anything that is their religion. There is no lack of religion as you say it. A child already has a personal religion.

Not informing them about other religions for all their childhood is imposing another religion on them. They will have been indoctrinated by the religion of No-Religion.

Classic!!!

The world would be a boring place without theists!

I am a parent. I am also an atheist. I am also somewhat politically to the left. I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't like coffee flavoured ice cream. Now, in raising my children, I did not 'indoctrinate' them in respect of any of these beliefs and preferences. I did not impose my beliefs by instilling fear - perhaps I could have shown my five year old child footage of death penalty victims suffering and squirming and illustrated the barbarity of state sanctioned killing. I could have shown my five year old footage of downtrodden, poverty ridden families evicted into the streets and then expounded the evils of capitalism and the ruling classes. I'm sure this would have worked. I'm equally sure I would have done irreparable damage to my child.

Most parents do not do these things. The fact that a parent would take a child to a "hell house" beggars belief. The fact that a parent would do anything that results in mental harm and distress to their children beggars belief. Such parents should be subject to the appropriate child protection laws, regardless of their religious status.

One of my kids ended up going to a Catholic school because it was a good private school. During that time, my child formed her own view about God and religion. We never discussed "hell" or what happens after you die because really young children rarely do. As they get older, they become more inquisitive and it is then incumbent upon a parent to answer such questions as neutrally as possible until such time as the child is old enough and mature enough to seek their own answers.

If a child does ask such a question, ie, "what happens to us when we die" then the child is obviously already feeling some anxiety, otherwise the question would not have been asked. It is safe to assume that something has happened to spark the question. Accordingly, you have to be sensitive in the answer that you give. Personally, I did the "some belive" spiel, ie, some believe that when you die you go to heaven and some believe that when you die you become born again as another creature, such as a butterfly or a bird or a dolphin. This worked well for me because it gives the child the opportunity to choose which animal they would like to come back as and why which then diffuses the anxiety.

Vortigern99 posted:

^ ^ ^ You know, that's a good point. Telling a child for certain there is no afterlife -- that we turn to dust and all our hopes and dreams evaporate into nothingness -- is just as "fear-instilling" as the story of hell. It's arguably worse, since in the story of hell there is an explicit hope for salvation away from and out of hell.

Agreed. I wouldn't say it was worse, but it is certainly on par if such an explicit explanation leads to anxiety and fear.

 

Sweet Jebus, how can you possibly not like coffee ice cream?

But I find that theistic religion is a lot like coffee ice cream. Some people believe that coffee and ice cream should never be paired. Some people fundamentally dislike coffee and/or all ice cream. Some people eat a particular brand of coffee ice cream for no other reason than it's the brand their parents bought and they've never tried anything else. Some people shop around until they find a brand of coffee ice cream with a taste they really like. Some people invent their own recipe for coffee ice cream from scratch.

At any rate, I don't think we should try any less hard to empathize with the reasons people have for being intolerant of a particular belief than we try to empathize with the reasons people have for holding that belief.

 

One is an open threat (do/don't do this/that and burn!) and one is just a statement of what you believe.

Given that you admit you are a Christian, I'm not surprised that you find the notion of nothingness fearful. But I think children who have not been promised a life after death would be less likely to find non-life scary, especially if it is maturely discussed as opposed to just hitting them in the face with it as a Hell-analogue.

Of course it is. It is neutral because it occurs to everyone regardless of behavior, rather than having a bias of how you behave affecting where you go.

Apparently you don't know what fearmongering is.

Saying "You will burn in hell UNLESS" is fearmongering, as it frightens them into believing something specific (i.e. Christian salvation).

Saying "When you die, that will be the end" is not fearmongering, as it does not prod them via fear toward a particular belief.

It may be a fearsome notion, but honestly from a non-Christian perspective it's not that bad a thing.

There is no evidence of God, life after death, or Hell. Teaching a child something without any evidence is wrong. Telling the child that there is no evidence is education.

I'm going to need some sources on that. Psychological studies, anything?

Yes there is.

Religion (from Dictionary.com):

1 a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Atheism fits neither category, as it neither concerns the universe as the creation of a superhuman agency, nor does it contain a fundamental set of beliefs/practices.

Redefining "religion" to mean "anything anyone believes for any reason" is a game that apologists like to play, but I like to think we can have a more intellectually honest conversation here. In point of fact, there is no such thing as "personal religion," as a religion is something agreed upon by multiple people. You are equating religion with belief, and that is incorrect.

Total nonsense.

Also, no one said that they shouldn't be informed about other religions. In fact I would highly encourage that. But they should not be told about only one religion, nor have it hammered into them that said religion is the "true" religion.

And easier to be mislead/indoctrinated.

We don't teach children algebra or calculus until they reach a certain age, because their minds are not mature enough to think in the lateral or nuanced ways necessary to completely understand them. Similarly, children below a certain age ca

 

One thing I've found about being a parent is that it has almost nothing to do with telling them what to believe or what to do and everything to do with modeling the right kinds of behavior. Children's brains are hard-wired for integrating the behavior of their parents into their own personalities. The way you act in front of your kids is really 99.99% of parenting.

 

And the thought of ceasing to exist is only fearful, because you have a preconcieved nothion that there should be something afterword. Teaching a child from birth that there is no after life would be akin to telling them that they have to go through puberty. If you have no preconcieved notion of an afterlife, the non existance of it does not make you scared.

Not so with a concept of hell and heaven. If you tell them that some action can land you in a pit of fire and dispair at the end of your life, intills a fear of that happening and forces them to do things that they might have done if they werent indoctranated, IE: Abortion, homosexuality, other. There is a distinct diffrence between the two.

 

This is actually what I was trying to say, but more concise and clear than I put it. So I'm quoting for agreement and emphasis.

 

This is an excellent discussion, you guys. Not necessarily on-topic (for which I partly blame myself), but fascinating. I tend to "side" with DorkmanScott, LostOnHoth, and their aetheistic ilk... but I still hold the opinion that the religious have every right to "indoctrinate" their children with their beliefs. If the fear of Hell were as traumatic as Dawkins and his proponents are suggesting, we would have millions of traumatized adults and children in this country alone, nevermind worldwide... and I just don't see that that's the case.

 

So are you saying that teaching children that they will cease to exist is perferable to teaching them they can choose between heaven and hell? As a Christian I have no fear of hell or death. I'm not suprised that those who find their deaths as the end of everything the are scared of death as well. Teaching children that they have a choice between accepting what God sacriced for you and rejecting it does not have to be fearful either. Not once was I ever scared by what I read in the Bible or was taught. When I had questions my parents and teachers maturely explained things to me. What I believe is not a threat. I've leanred that people can decide where they will end up. They can choose God and heaven, or themselves and hell. It is not a threat, it is a choice.

Simply because it happens to everyone does not make it neutral. It simply makes it aggresive towards all.

Actually saying "When you die, that will be the end" is fearmongering. It causes fear in those that hear it. If we were on a boat and it was sinking and someone said, "Unless we get to the lifeboats we are goining to die!", would that be fearmongering? If someone said, "Were all going to die! There is no hope!" Is that fearmongering?

Hell and Heaven may be a fearsome notion, but honestrly form a Christian perspective it's not that bad a thing.

There is also no evidence that there is no God, no life after death, or no hell. There is evidence that there is a God, just look outside, or look at the complexity of your body, or the fact that our universe was a created universe.

Well there was Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Fidel Castro to name a few. How many children were put in the gulags? How many children lost their parents because they weren't atheists? All those people were Atheists. Together they've caused more deaths then all of Christianity combined. Atheism can be just as harmful as any religion. Now sure those people are not the best example of Atheism but they were atheists. Just as the Crusades and Inquisition was not the best example of Christianity.

Also here is a study that showed religious youths were less likely to commit crimes than non religous youths. http://www.youthandreligion.org/publications/docs/RiskReport1.pdf

This is a study that showed relious people have a lower chance of commiting suicide than those who are non relgious. http://www.adherents.com/misc/religion_suicide.html

 

Jabbadabbado posted:

One thing I've found about being a parent is that it has almost nothing to do with telling them what to believe or what to do and everything to do with modeling the right kinds of behavior. Children's brains are hard-wired for integrating the behavior of their parents into their own personalities. The way you act in front of your kids is really 99.99% of parenting.

QFT

 

You don't think 2 Kings 2:23-24 would scare kids? Having bears come out and mauling a bunch of children to death for mocking someone seems like a pretty scary account.

I would certainly not tell any children about the loving, fatherly example in Genesis 19:8 of righteous Lot and his plea for the men of the city to rape his two daughters.

At the very least, I wouldn't be telling them that these are examples that reflect the creature that we are supposed to worship, who is going to decide our eternal fates, and who we are supposed to look to for defining right and wrong.

 

Would not the Humpty Dumpty story scare children? Having some poor egg-man broken forever would seem quite sad. There is no way a child could go through life not being scared by something. Wouldn't children be scared when they found out they could go to jail for being bad?

Also Lot is not God, what he does does not reflect on God. The Bible is full of examples of people, even the great heroes of the faith, being utter jerks, creeps, and just plain evil. If everyone in the Bible did no evil it would not be true. What Lot did was wrong and he payed for it later.

What people do in the Bible does not reflect on God, what God does in the Bible reflects on God.

Also childrens Bibles are usually quite helpful

 

EDIT: Let's talk about intolerance instead of Christian apologetics, hmm?

 

Hitler wasn't an atheist.

According to wiki, Hitler did not believe in a "remote, rationalist divinity" but in an "active deity,"[50] which he frequently referred to as "Creator" or "Providence". wiki on Hitler

All the others were communists, as far as I can tell.

All of them were dictators.

I'd like to know why this thread has become another religious thread. Isn't it supposed to be about intolerance? Should the discussion about atheism be on the atheist's thread?