[PUG] Is indoctrination of children abusive?

Regardless of where the bar is set, there would no doubt be a lot of legal grey area on this one. It seems formation is a normal thing to see taking place in a family....perhaps the level of enforcement or extremity of measures used to form might be the question.
 
Last edited:
While I don't agree with it, it is the right of every parent to decide how to raise their children. I see very little benefit in raising a child in a religious atmosphere where it is not encouraged for them to ask questions and form their own opinions. I would not raise my children this way, but I have no right to tell someone else they can't.
 
I would like to say yes, because I know of no religion other than LaVeyan Satanism or The Order of Shai Gar which is actually beneficial for children and the formation of minds.
 
It's similar to parents deciding what their children are going to be when they grow up career wise.
It limits potential and critical thinking.

However it is not up to any government to regulate it in my opinion.
And I have no business telling anyone how to raise their children either.

So many conflicting values..I am all over the place with one:m097:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: acd
INFJesus said:
It's similar to parents deciding what their children are going to be when they grow up career wise.
It limits potential and critical thinking.

However it is not up to any government to regulate it in my opinion.
And I have no business telling anyone how to raise their children either.

So many conflicting values..I am all over the place with one:m097:
Click to expand...

I understand being all over the place. While I don't agree with it I can't condone the government having any say in it. I suppose the only way I will be able to change it even slightly is to raise my children (if I ever have any) to think for themselves, to ask questions, to form their own opinion and to be their own person, whether that person believes in God or subscribes to a specific religion is not up to me.
 
We don't need any more laws. First, these parents believe in what they are saying to their children. They aren't intentionally inflicting harm. Once they begin flogging the children in the name of God, then the law can butt in. That's child abuse.

I'm sure tons of us here have had religious upbringings, and were still able to come to our own conclusions. Education is the way to go. If it is made illegal to teach one's children a path, what next? It'd just lead to a sort of tyranny. Soon after, we might be harvesting our baby citizens from the walls of a giant synthetic womb and letting the state raise them!! Eeek![/crackpot]
 
Shai Gar said:
I would like to say yes, because I know of no religion other than LaVeyan Satanism or The Order of Shai Gar which is actually beneficial for children and the formation of minds.
Click to expand...

You do seem to be lacking a good preschool program, but that is one heck of a scary thought. A good preschool program and Wednesday night suppers are the hallmark of any good religion, you know.

A couple of arguments:

http://mwillett.org/atheism/religion-is-child-abuse.htm

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118


More specifically, I'd like to hear opinions on whether indoctrination, if it is child abuse, should be illegal. If so, what kinds and levels of indoctrination should be prevented?
Click to expand...

My opinion on making indoctrination illegal is that it usually doesn't work anyway, so what's the point of wasting a bunch of legislators' breath trying to prevent it? Kids manage to resist it pretty well themselves, usually. Everyone knows (especially here in the Bible Belt) that it's the preachers' kids - presumably the most indoctrinated ones - who are always the wildest. Total waste of time and money, at least if you are talking about the kind of indoctrination I am familiar with. I suppose there are extreme cases of indoctrination-as-child-abuse, though, but typically kids un-indoctrinate themselves at some point anyway.
 
I apologise as I got only two-thirds of the way through the first article and stoped reading.

I fear if I say anything other then it is complety and utterly absurd to think that religous upbringings are indoctrination and that religous upbringings are abusive. I fear if I say anything else my knowledge of profuse words will be incited.

However, before my top blows I need to put out that this man mind is so backwards in his thinking and knowledge of religion that he should not even be valued as an author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I've now read Dawkins "theory" and calmed down a bit, I must ask why does booth authors use such abusive language?

This might be added to the "False doctrine of Hell" catagory, however I think this is also a misnomer as Hell isn't even normaly taught to young children. Fear is a terrible way to start childrens view of God. In my experince on both the learning and the teaching side of childrens ministry, the afterlife is far to complex to understand at the age of 5, shoot I would say that it shouldn't be thourughly taught until 10 or 12.

Most sunday schools often teach straight bible and memorization. "mini-church"(for kids below middle school age) often focuses on morals, values, how to live a good life, and how to treat others.

And people of their right minds do become Christians in their teens and as adults, I was the one who brought my parents to church not the other way around.

I'm astounded how ignorant "intelligent" men can be. But how else do you act when your life goal is to destory religion.

they in every sense of the word are fools and should be regarded as nothing less.
 
Last edited:
Barnabas said:
I apologise as I got only two-thirds of the way through the first article and stoped reading.

I fear if I say anything other then it is complety and utterly absurd to think that religous upbringings are indoctrination and that religous upbringings are abusive. I fear if I say anything else my knowledge of profuse words will be incited.

However, before my top blows I need to put out that this man mind is so backwards in his thinking and knowledge of religion that he should not even be valued as an author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I've now read Dawkins "theory" and calmed down a bit, I must ask why does booth authors use such abusive language?

This might be added to the "False doctrine of Hell" catagory, however I think this is also a misnomer as Hell isn't even normaly taught to young children. Fear is a terrible way to start childrens view of God. In my experince on both the learning and the teaching side of childrens ministry, the afterlife is far to complex to understand at the age of 5, shoot I would say that it shouldn't be thourughly taught until 10 or 12.

Most sunday schools often teach straight bible and memorization. "mini-church"(for kids below middle school age) often focuses on morals, values, how to live a good life, and how to treat others.

And people of their right minds do become Christians in their teens and as adults, I was the one who brought my parents to church not the other way around.

I'm astounded how ignorant "intelligent" men can be. But how else do you act when your life goal is to destory religion.

they in every sense of the word are fools and should be regarded as nothing less.
Click to expand...

You may have found your religion on your own, and I applaud you for that. I believe people should find something to believe in on their own. However, you will find that while you may not have been forced into religion at a young age quite a few people were. I am not arguing that the government should have any say in what parents decide to teach their children, or how they raise them. I just wish people would see that planning a child's religion falls along the same lines as planning their career. I was raised in a very devout family and I was forced the memorize bible verses and hymns until eventually I could spit back any information you wanted. I was a good christian child, until I began to ask questions. No that was not allowed. You believed what you were told and that was that. Blind faith was what the expected from me and for years I gave it to them and now that I don't I am a disappointment because I didn't follow the path they set for me. It reminds me of when a child tells her overbearing mother that she's not applying to the college "they" decided on. The mother freaks out because the child is straying from the plan they had set and the child feels like she has let her mother down. She becomes the black sheep because she formed her own opinions and grew into her own person. I view it as living vicariously through your child.
 
Seems people are confusing religious education with indoctrination. Figures!


Shai Gar said:
I would like to say yes, because I know of no religion other than LaVeyan Satanism or The Order of Shai Gar which is actually beneficial for children and the formation of minds.
Click to expand...
Really? I would sincerely like to know how they're more more beneficial for the formation of minds than say the writings of profound religious thinkers like St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonedes, Averroes, Avicenna just to name a few?
 
Last edited:
The same Thomas Aquinas Martin Luther King Jr. cited when outlining the basic tenents of Civil Rights. Of course why take my word for it:
"One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong."
Click to expand...
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html


Ehh...what the heck, he also threw a little St. Augustine in there as well.
 
Peguy said:
The same Thomas Aquinas Martin Luther King Jr. cited when outlining the basic tenents of Civil Rights. Of course why take my word for it:

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html


Ehh...what the heck, he also threw a little St. Augustine in there as well.
Click to expand...

Usually a public intellectual only has to say one or two preposterous or vile things to find himself largely discredited. Are your pet theologians exceptions? Why should cherry picking the good stuff make up for the bad stuff, such that the author's writings may be considered good for children?
 
TheLastMohican said:
Usually a public intellectual only has to say one or two preposterous or vile things to find himself largely discredited. Are your pet theologians exceptions? Why should cherry picking the good stuff make up for the bad stuff, such that the author's writings may be considered good for children?
Click to expand...
Actually it's Shai Gar who's cherry-picking here. Whatever he said about Jews, St. Thomas Aquinas was a profound thinker with deep influences on Western thinking. Does that mean we should ignore some of the unpleasant things he may of said? No, but neither should he neglect him just because of that. Just like one cannot ignore the greatness and influence of Wagner on classical music even when taking into account his anti-Semitic views.

What ultimately matters is whether the overal perspective presented by a thinker is viable and leads to the truth, not particular statements they said on this or that issue.

In other words, Shai Gar is going to have to try harder.
 
Last edited:
Peguy said:
Really? I would sincerely like to know how they're more more beneficial for the formation of minds than say the writings of profound religious thinkers like St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, Maimonedes, Averroes, Avicenna just to name a few?
Click to expand...

If you want to use the existence of your imaginary sponsor of your historically violent, abusive, ultra-capitalistic, imperialistic, bigoted, sexist and ignorance sponsoring organisation, as the reason for forcing others who aren't gulled into your belief system, to obey the same religious laws, then the onus is on you to PROVE the existence of said entity.

Satanism is better for children because it doesn't demand that its adherents deny their own animal nature, their own sexual nature, or to repress their natural scientific curiosity.

The Order of Shai Gar is better for children because it demands that adherents explore their own selves, study the world we live in, and maintain their bodies in as best a possible shell for their minds as they can, while accepting and adhering their own natural urges.

The sexual ablution required and demanded of Christians is especially damaging for developing adolescent minds. That's just ONE of the many problems with Christian indoctrination for children.
 
Shai Gar said:
If you want to use the existence of your imaginary sponsor of your historically violent, abusive, ultra-capitalistic, imperialistic, bigoted, sexist and ignorance sponsoring organisation, as the reason for forcing others who aren't gulled into your belief system, to obey the same religious laws, then the onus is on you to PROVE the
existence of said entity.
Click to expand...
I can obviously tell you don't know one damn thing about Catholicism. For one thing, St. Thomas Aquinas had much to say about the existence of God, not least of which his famous Five proofs. This should help you:
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/existgod.html

As for all that "violent, abusive, ultra-capitalistic, imperialistic, bigoted, sexist and ignorance sponsoring organisation" fuh fuh fuh. Well it's not even worth bothering with.

Satanism is better for children because it doesn't demand that its adherents deny their own animal nature, their own sexual nature, or to repress their natural scientific curiosity.
Click to expand...

So it's better for children to ask them to act like animals, rather than uplift themselves to act like actual human persons?

The Order of Shai Gar is better for children because it demands that adherents explore their own selves, study the world we live in, and maintain their bodies in as best a possible shell for their minds as they can, while accepting and adhering their own natural urges.
Click to expand...
Sounds rather narcisstic if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Peguy said:
Actually it's Shai Gar who's cherry-picking here.
Click to expand...
He did it too, but that doesn't matter, because you were the one saying that Aquinas's writings are beneficial to children in their formative years. All Shai Gar has to do is come up with a few particularly unsavory statements in those writings to show that they are not good for children to take as truth.

If you want to sort out the good stuff and say that that is good for children, then that's fine; but you weren't that careful.
 
Peguy said:
In other words, Shai Gar is going to have to try harder.
Click to expand...

Because TLM said that certain members who are more prominent should argue with more rigour, in order to be better understood, or perhaps ... I can't remember, sorry TLM, I should be asleep right now my mind is slowly forgetting things.

Peguy said:
Actually it's Shai Gar who's cherry-picking here. Whatever he said about Jews, St. Thomas Aquinas was a profound thinker with deep influences on Western thinking.
Click to expand...
He certainly was a profound thinker with deep influences on Western Thinking. That doesn't mean we should appreciate his views.
Karl Marx and Mao Tse Tung were also profound thinkers (in different areas), but that doesn't mean we apply their thoughts to modern society.

Rasputin and Anton LaVey were also profound thinkers who have shaped a lot of society for their time elapsed since death. I'd like to apply their thoughts, but you don't want to...

Peguy said:
Does that mean we should ignore some of the unpleasant things he may of said? No, but neither should he neglect him just because of that.
Click to expand...
He was a Christian Theologian, his writings only apply to christianity, otherwise we have to start objectively questioning the origins and lines of thought of his work. He references a character in a widely read work of fiction a lot. I'd discount him on that alone unless he, or you, has/have the math or objective observations with rational arguments to back up the existence of YHWH.

Peguy said:
What ultimately matters is whether the overal perspective presented by a thinker is viable and leads to the truth, not particular statements they said on this or that issue.
Click to expand...
Good point, valid and I agree with it. Now prove God is real.

Don't use the bible, or I'll use Lord of The Rings to prove the existence of Uruk-Hai.

Peguy said:
Just like one cannot ignore the greatness and influence of Wagner on classical music even when taking into account his anti-Semitic views.
Click to expand...
I can. I dislike Wagners music. His antisemitic views make sense given that before the 1960s when the jews started putting a lot of money into PR campaigns, most people were anti-semitic based on religious teachings in Christianity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top