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

[Maltaran]

I believe the US is the only western country where gentile male infants are (almost) usually circumcised. It used to be quite common in some western European countries for a few decades (60s-70s),

It was fairly common in the UK before the war, the rate dropped off dramatically after the NHS was created because they decided it wasn't medically necessary and so you couldn't get it for free.

[Gears of the Beast]

You claim that the "health benefits are extremely minor, and not worth the potential downsides" even after reading the articles, but all four links I've provided have said the EXACT OPPOSITE. Quoting from WebMD "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks,"and that is literally the title of the CNN article.

Seems entirely irrelevant to me. Are any of these 'benefits' immediate enough to necessitate a violation a child's bodily integrity/autonomy? Circumcision has nothing to do with the infant's immediate well-being. If someone feels that their child would benefit from circumcision I submit that they should wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want to permanently remove healthy tissue. If there is some kind of issue with an infant where circumcision is recommended that's understandable but arbitrarily forcing that decision onto a child is a violation of their fundamental rights. Incidentally the risk that a child may be bullied for the appearance of their genitals does not indicate to me that the correct answer is to mutilate the genitals in order to appease some possible future bullies.

[Reny of Storms End]

In a general sense, the material that is currently there is repurposed to build the vagina, having the foreskin removed reduces the amount of material available. This is less of an issue with the technique that I had, but given I went to the only surgeon in the world that uses this technique, its a greater issue for most and impacts the depth of the new vagina. Additionally scarring from the circumcision (which was the case for me) can lead to patches of reduced sensitivity, and with the technique that I did have can lead to the scarring being visible in the aesthetic of the vagina, basically outing it as a constructed one in addition to the reduced sensitivity issue.

Thanks for the new knowledge.

[Jo498]

It was fairly common in the UK before the war, the rate dropped off dramatically after the NHS was created because they decided it wasn't medically necessary and so you couldn't get it for free.

Thanks! I knew that it was comparably common in the UK, but didn't know that this was already before WW II. To my knowledge it was so rare in continental Europe at this time that you could really (unfortunately) pick the male Jews by inspection of privates. The practice I mentioned in the 60s/70s was because of the alleged (largely debunked) health reasons but I do not think it was ever a majority and apparently has been out of fashion for quite a while, so among younger (<30) European males it probably is again strongly correlated with religious/cultural background.

[sologdin]

You don't have to right to minimise that.

i don't mean to be a jerk, but am fairly sure the right flows the other way, though exercise of the right to minimize may expose the minimizer to justified political reprobation.

the danger, though, is rather in maximization--we can acknowledge that certain cass are abusive, as described supra, without turning those cases into a universal proscription of theistic parents, as the thread at times attempts.

[Summah]

solo, I think there are only a couple people in the thread who believe all theism is a form of abuse and I know that at least I personally do not take their arguments seriously (though I believe them to be serious and earnest) and find that type of attitude to be as closed minded as some of the theists they rail against. Except for those couple people no one is saying all religion is some type of abuse, and despite some attempts to broaden it (by those same people), the issue here is solely about whether religious extremism can be a form of abuse in and of itself. Brook's example, as I understood it, isn't one of religiously based abuse, but rather an example of psychological/emotional/verbal abuse that has no connection to religion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Summah,

If you can't define "extremism" or "fundamentalism" the discussion is always going to spread to more generalized religious practices. Can you offer such a definition?

[Summah]

Ser Scot, I really don't think many people are having trouble knowing what this is, except those who equate all religion to extremism and you who I assume knows, but wants an exact definition from me, because lawyer I'm guessing. So generally religious extremist take the word of their holy book as the literal truth and often uses this to justify things much of the rest of the world finds abhorrent, frequently isolation: no exposure to outside groups, people, influences is allowed, finally other groups (religious and secular) are usually rejected for religious reasons. So some examples are Quiverfull Christianity, Haredi Judaism, Wahhabi Islam.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Summah,

Thank you. That's much better than generically refering to "fundamentalism" or "extremeism". The isolation is probably the key, in my opinion.

[Dr. Pepper]

I do think atheist extremism can be just as harmful as religious fundamentalist extremism, as it relates to parenting. I have known people who incorporate Richard Dawkins principles into their parenting styles and the results appear pretty destructive from a cursory glance. One of the issues I observed was the children were very focused on the concept of ignorance and how it's a terrible state of being that all religious adherents exist in, and yet the children were not allowed to explore religion in any way. I don't know what the long term effects would be on these children, and I'm curious to read some testimonials. But this sort of indoctrination is a near identical feature of the religious fundamentalism many of us agree can be considered abusive.

[The Iceman of the North]

I clearly said that it was wrong whether the intention was harmful or not.

You claim that the "health benefits are extremely minor, and not worth the potential downsides" even after reading the articles, but all four links I've provided have said the EXACT OPPOSITE. Quoting from WebMD "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks,"and that is literally the title of the CNN article.

I tell you I'm really surprised that a body with members who earn good money on mutilating kids would come to the conclusion that said mutilation would have health benefits.

[protar]

I do think atheist extremism can be just as harmful as religious fundamentalist extremism, as it relates to parenting. I have known people who incorporate Richard Dawkins principles into their parenting styles and the results appear pretty destructive from a cursory glance. One of the issues I observed was the children were very focused on the concept of ignorance and how it's a terrible state of being that all religious adherents exist in, and yet the children were not allowed to explore religion in any way. I don't know what the long term effects would be on these children, and I'm curious to read some testimonials. But this sort of indoctrination is a near identical feature of the religious fundamentalism many of us agree can be considered abusive.

While this is certainly true - atheism is not an organised religion. It has no specific doctrine so it's less credible to attribute abusive upbringings to it. The only scenario where I'd say that is true is in the one you mentioned above - where their child attempts to explore other beliefs. Religious doctrine on the other hand can be harmful in much broader ways.

[Shryke]

While this is certainly true - atheism is not an organised religion. It has no specific doctrine so it's less credible to attribute abusive upbringings to it. The only scenario where I'd say that is true is in the one you mentioned above - where their child attempts to explore other beliefs. Religious doctrine on the other hand can be harmful in much broader ways.

Theism is not an organized religion either. Both, however, have specific ideologies that fall within them. And depending on that ideology or how you teach it to your children it can certainly be harmful.

[protar]

Theism is not an organized religion either. Both, however, have specific ideologies that fall within them. And depending on that ideology or how you teach it to your children it can certainly be harmful.

Theism is not an organised religion. But Christianity is, Islam is, Judaism, Sikhism, Wicca, whatever. They all have specific doctrines and a lot of those doctrines - when followed in a fundamentalist and extreme way can be harmful to children exposed to them. Atheism doesn't have any doctrine. So I think that the only abusive behaviour that you could attribute to atheism is an unwillingness to let children explore their own beliefs. Because that's the only belief that atheism has - that God isn't real. Christianity on the other hand (or any other religion) has plenty of beliefs not strictly tied to whether or not God exists.

[Summah]

I do think atheist extremism can be just as harmful as religious fundamentalist extremism, as it relates to parenting. I have known people who incorporate Richard Dawkins principles into their parenting styles and the results appear pretty destructive from a cursory glance. One of the issues I observed was the children were very focused on the concept of ignorance and how it's a terrible state of being that all religious adherents exist in, and yet the children were not allowed to explore religion in any way. I don't know what the long term effects would be on these children, and I'm curious to read some testimonials. But this sort of indoctrination is a near identical feature of the religious fundamentalism many of us agree can be considered abusive.

I had been thinking of that (and like specifically Dawkins), but hadn't yet figured out how to frame it. I could imagine some parents isolating their kids from all theists and that sort of thing, and while the child would have more access to scientific knowledge, would likely be ignorant about a lot of aspects of human culture.

[Shryke]

Theism is not an organised religion. But Christianity is, Islam is, Judaism, Sikhism, Wicca, whatever. They all have specific doctrines and a lot of those doctrines - when followed in a fundamentalist and extreme way can be harmful to children exposed to them. Atheism doesn't have any doctrine. So I think that the only abusive behaviour that you could attribute to atheism is an unwillingness to let children explore their own beliefs. Because that's the only belief that atheism has - that God isn't real. Christianity on the other hand (or any other religion) has plenty of beliefs not strictly tied to whether or not God exists.

You are making the same mistake I just pointed out. You are admitting that theism has no doctrine and that neither does atheism, but then trying to compare atheism to Christianity anyway because?

Theism is like Atheism. They are both simply beliefs in the existence or non-existence of deities.

Specific philosophies that fall under these headings have dogma.

You are trying to play some logical sleight-of-hand here by comparing a general philosophical stance to a specific dogma.

[protar]

You are making the same mistake I just pointed out. You are admitting that theism has no doctrine and that neither does atheism, but then trying to compare atheism to Christianity anyway because?

Theism is like Atheism. They are both simply beliefs in the existence or non-existence of deities.

Specific philosophies that fall under these headings have dogma.

You are trying to play some logical sleight-of-hand here by comparing a general philosophical stance to a specific dogma.

There's no slight of hand here. It is simply the truth that the majority of Theists follow a specific doctrine in addition to believing in God, whereas the vast majority of Atheists do not follow any sort of doctrine in addition to disbelieving the existence of God. Therefore it's completely valid to compare atheism to a more specific religion like Christianity.

[Shryke]

There's no slight of hand here. It is simply the truth that the majority of Theists follow a specific doctrine in addition to believing in God, whereas the vast majority of Atheists do not follow any sort of doctrine in addition to disbelieving the existence of God. Therefore it's completely valid to compare atheism to a more specific religion like Christianity.

No, it's not. It's true that most atheists don't have any specific beliefs strong enough to apply to the discussion, but that does not change the fact that you are comparing too unlike things.

You are dragging yourself right to the water but refusing to drink.

[protar]

No, it's not. It's true that most atheists don't have any specific beliefs strong enough to apply to the discussion, but that does not change the fact that you are comparing too unlike things.

You are dragging yourself right to the water but refusing to drink.

Well what would you say is a valid comparison? Theists who don't follow a specific doctrine? Atheists who do? Do those groups even exist? If they do it's in such a minority that it's essentially pointless to have that discussion.

Theists follow doctrine, Atheists don't. Therefore the list of possible scenarios in which an atheist might abuse a child based on their beliefs is much smaller than the list of scenarios in which a theist might. In an atheist family the only scenario I can think of would be if the child was punished for exploring religion. In a theist family the child might never have any interaction with atheism, but still might be punished for eating the wrong food, or wearing the wrong clothes etc. etc.

If you don't like the comparison that's your issue - I find it perfectly adequate.

[Shryke]

Well what would you say is a valid comparison? Theists who don't follow a specific doctrine? Atheists who do? Do those groups even exist? If they do it's in such a minority that it's essentially pointless to have that discussion.

Theists follow doctrine, Atheists don't. Therefore the list of possible scenarios in which an atheist might abuse a child based on their beliefs is much smaller than the list of scenarios in which a theist might. In an atheist family the only scenario I can think of would be if the child was punished for exploring religion. In a theist family the child might never have any interaction with atheism, but still might be punished for eating the wrong food, or wearing the wrong clothes etc. etc.

If you don't like the comparison that's your issue - I find it perfectly adequate.

Nope. Some theists have no doctrine, some atheists do. And this is yes another problem with your comparison.

A valid comparison would be between theists and atheists (eg - atheists rarely have a specific doctrine whereas theists frequently do) and between specific doctrines or philosophies (ie - hardcore New Atheists are just as intolerant as hardcore Muslims). Because those things are alike.

Trying to compare a general belief in a there being no god(s) to a specific religious doctrine is just not a sensible comparison since they are not the same kind of thing.

You are attempting, again, a rhetorical sleight-of-hand by saying "atheism has no doctrine but christianity does" because you are comparing a simple belief and/or overarching philosophy to a very specific type of religion (that itself falls under a much larger simple belief and/or overarching philosophy). One that does not necessarily have any doctrine. And once you recognize this, you can see the big hole in your argument I just pointed out.