Children raised by religious fundamentalists—can this be a form of child abuse?

[The Iceman of the North]

Kararrdin,

What two examples?

Eponine and Warg Arry?

[Castel]

I would consider non-abusive exposure to religion to be where

1. The child is not completely isolated from any differing views, is not taught that different beliefs or nonbelief is evil. A parent can still teach that their beliefs are good without casting others as evil.

2. The child is not afraid of punishment, either physical, social or metaphysical, for forming his own beliefs. He's not afraid of being shamed or disowned. The parents don't put the psychological weight of having responsibility for their happiness or non-disappointment on him.

There are cases where this is impossible though.

I was exposed to alternate views*, but there was no question that some were supposed to be right and wrong according to my parents and those that surrounded me. I was definitely encouraged to learn but certain things were hemmed off basically. Many things in fact.

I don't know that I was abused.

[Dr. Pepper]

So let me get this straight: You people would rather tear a family apart, even if the parents love the children and the children love the parents, are being provided for , and don't want to be taken away, and give these children up to child services, just because the religious aspect of their upbringing tends to be fundamentalist?

Yes, I'd rather the family be fully investigated rather than sit by while child abuse occurs. Would you rather leave a child in a home if you discover sexual abuse was occurring despite the fact that the parents love the child and the child loves the parent (even the absuer) and the child was being provided for and doesn't want to be taken away? Or would you rather take steps to remove the child from an abusive situation?

Removing a child from a home isn't necessarily permanent. Investigating a family for potential child abuse doesn't automatically mean dividing the family. The state almost always desires keeping families together. Parents who have had children removed from the home often have the ability to regain guardianship, usually after a period of training and education as well as supervised visitation.

I have never been moved to call the authorities simply because a family is fundamentalist. Regardless of my own personal feelings about it, I could never expect the state to agree that simple fundamentalism is abusive because religion is so protected here in the US. ffs, we have dozens of fundamentalist families on tv shows who are rewarded and applauded for how they raise their children. If I were to call, I would have to be able to cite some specific behaviors that are widely accepted to be abuse (violence or neglect, for example) to feel the call would be taken seriously. Though, I have to say that some of the testimonials here give some great examples for how to frame an abuse report when the fundamentalism exists without any apparent behaviors that are commonly accepted as abuse.

[AverageGuy]

Never mind.

[Eponine]

There are cases where this is impossible though.

I was exposed to alternate views*, but there was no question that some were supposed to be right and wrong according to my parents and those that surrounded me. I was definitely encouraged to learn but certain things were hemmed off basically. Many things in fact.

I don't know that I was abused.

I literally was not allowed to participate in any "secular" activities - the county rec soccer league, for example. My mother stopped letting me spend time with a (Christian) friend after she learned that we were spending time with public schooled boys at the public swimming pool, talking in a visible public area. I had no non-Christian adults in my life.

[Castel]

I literally was not allowed to participate in any "secular" activities - the county rec soccer league, for example. My mother stopped letting me spend time with a (Christian) friend after she learned that we were spending time with public schooled boys at the public swimming pool, talking in a visible public area. I had no non-Christian adults in my life.

Which was abuse.

If then line is merely "cannot participate in anything that doesn't actively support the ideology" then sure. I was just trying to tease out where the line was, especially when social factors come into play.

[Eponine]

Which was abuse.

If then line is merely "cannot participate in anything that doesn't actively support the ideology" then sure. I was just trying to tease out where the line was, especially when social factors come into play.

I don't think there's any obligation to expose children to every conceivable belief while making no judgements. I don't think there's one hard line.

[karaddin]

Eponine and Warg Arry?

I'm kind of stunned this needed to be made explicit

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karaddin,

I simply want to know if bringing my child to church qualifies as "indoctrination" under anyone's definition? I would certainly think it should. If not how are "indoctrination" and "religious fundamentalism" being defined?

[SeanF]

Karaddin,

I simply want to know if bringing my child to church qualifies as "indoctrination" under anyone's definition? I would certainly think it should. If not how are "indoctrination" and "religious fundamentalism" being defined?

Richard Dawkins would describe your behaviour as "child abuse."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SeanF,

Shocks me not at all. That said do people here agree with Dawkins definitons? If not, why not? Question your assumptions folks.

[Castel]

Karaddin,

I simply want to know if bringing my child to church qualifies as "indoctrination" under anyone's definition? I would certainly think it should. If not how are "indoctrination" and "religious fundamentalism" being defined?

No.

I wouldn't even necessarily call it abuse if you told her that God was actually real. We certainly don't act as if our kids need to be shown perfect agnosticism on every position. The only thing that might change my mind here is Karaddin's point about this being inherently harmful to a child that is non-conforming.

SeanF,

Shocks me not at all. That said do people her agree with Dawkins definitons? If not, why not? Question your assumptions folks.

Because the examples given here go far beyond any sort of disagreement with just the religious position no? Someone who feels that locking away your child from the world like what happened to some of the people here is abuse doesn't really have to seem to have some great contradiction at the heart of their argument.

You seem to want to start a...discussion over this, when everyone else seems to have a bone to pick with cases that are so removed from this that it's difficult to see the connection or the supposedly hidden assumptions that bind the two.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

I always want to start a discussion. I enjoy discussions. Many questions I've asked about my assumptions have reinforced my existing opinion.

[Castel]

Castel,

I always want to start a discussion. I enjoy discussions. Many questions I've asked about my assumptions have reinforced my existing opinion.

Discussions are fun, I'm not against discussions. Except when it comes to raw jeans.

But it seems that you're looking for particular opinion that isn't that popular. If someone has already expressed it, in your mind, you should probably just call them out directly.

[SeanF]

Personally I don't think locking children away from the world amounts to abuse. I have a couple of friends who are in no sense religious fundamentalists but who work very hard to shield their children from what they see as pernicious influences - things that I consider innocuous, such as watching the Lord of the Rings, or Carry On films.

I think the definition of abuse needs to remain very narrowly focused - on sexual abuse or violence.

[deleted01]

Okay, how about this. If I was a vegetarian, and raised my child as one, but allowed him/her to try meat and make their own decision, that is fine. But if I never allowed that to happen, and banned my child from spending time with meat-eaters, telling the child that if they did, they would be severely punished, and if they ever ate meat, I would never speak to them again... that is wrong. I feel the same way about religion. Are we clear?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

Direwolfspirit did state that all religious "indoctrination" is abuse and I have called DWS out. DWS hasn't chosen to respond. TM, then questioned my definition of "indoctrination". I called him out and he chose not to respond. What else can I do?

Dracarya,

I see what you're saying.

[Castel]

Castel,

Direwolfspirit did state that all religious "indoctrination" is abuse and I have called DWS out. DWS hasn't chosen to respond. TM, then questioned my definition of "indoctrination". I called him out and he chose not to respond. What else can I do?

Fair enough.

[SeanF]

Okay, how about this. If I was a vegetarian, and raised my child as one, but allowed him/her to try meat and make their own decision, that is fine. But if I never allowed that to happen, and banned my child from spending time with meat-eaters, telling the child that if they did, they would be severely punished, and if they ever ate meat, I would never speak to them again... that is wrong. I feel the same way about religion. Are we clear?

I would consider such behaviour on the part of a parent to be wrong, but I wouldn't describe it as "abuse."

[Summah]

But the original premise of the thread isn't that all religion is harmful to children or that taking children to religious services is wrong (and really you're only going to find people like Dawkins and Gears arguing that, I don't think its the point of this, I think it's a different conversation altogether) it's that religious extremism, which often seems to coincide with situations of children not being exposed to outsiders or other POVs is harmful. And I don't think parents are required to educate children about every religion, but children should learn (in school) the basics of the world's major religions. Children should be allowed to have friends that aren't part of their families religious in group if they wants. They should also have respect if they do develop beliefs that are different from their family's. In the types of situations I'm talking about, children seem to usually not be allowed to make friends outside the group, nor are differing beliefs (or lack thereof) tolerated. The personal examples given by Eponine and Warg Arry early in the thread are the types of situations I was thinking of.

Also I am not really arguing for a change in laws about child abuse to include this, although I think these situations can be abusive, because it's extremely subjective and would possibly be used in a political way, not to mention the religious protections in the constitution, but even if something is not codified by law that doesn't mean it cannot abusive.