Religion as child abuse?

[Tank]

[Claireliontamer]

Interesting question.  I think in the vast majority of cases, no it isn't child abuse.  I think even the most religious of families genuinely have the child's best interests at heart.  If they believe not following a religion will result in their child suffering eternal torment in hell for example than of course as parents they want to protect their child from that if that's what they believe.

However, I think there are certainly cases where it does border on child abuse, particularly emotional abuse even if that isn't their intention.  Emotional abuse is when a parent or caregiver harms a child's mental and social development, or causes severe emotional harm.  I can certainly think of examples where kids have been isolated socially and have ended up with mental turmoil due to their parent's beliefs.

A more extreme case would be something like this http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/08/woman-jailed-five-years-children-syria where the mother took her children to join ISIS.  Now in some ways I don't think the mother is to blame as she's clearly been influenced by the ISIS recruiters and again she might believe she's doing the right thing for her children.

There's also this horrific story http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/more-cases-ritual-child-abuse-linked-witchcraft-beliefs-reported-police and others like it where the parents have believed the child to be 'infected' by the devil.  That's certainly abuse.

[Davin]

While I'm not sure if abuse is always applicable, I do think it is bad practice.

I know that the religious bullshit fucked up my understanding of reality for most of my youth. It was wrong of my parents to pretend to have honestly investigated the religious bullshit, it was wrong of them to lie to me about all the researching they did that turned out to their religion being true, and it was wrong of them to instill in their children the idea that doubt is the devil trying to trick them.

Also, I think wanted to protect their children from the harm of hell and may have thought that living under those silly rules made their kids lives better, but I don't think that ignorance is an excuse. Especially not nowadays. If one is going to take responsibility for the life a person, then it is on them to make sure that they are doing right by those under their care otherwise that falls under negligence.

[Hardvark]

Chopping body parts off babies is most definitely abuse, should be illegal in my opinion. 

[Pasta Chick]

I think this whole issue gets very murky when you start trying to pin down exactly what defines "abuse". A popular opinion seems to be that it's only abuse if you have poor or aggressive intentions. But abuse can come from a legitimate feeling of "it's for their own good", and I think religion amplifies that with the threat of hell for lack of compliance. You might feel kinda icky and wrong about what you're doing, but the proposed alternative is fire and brimstone.

[Nam]

Chopping body parts off babies is most definitely abuse, should be illegal in my opinion. 

Even during the past when cleanliness was an issue, and still is in some parts of the world?

Female circumcision I totally agree is barbaric but male circumcision is always abuse?

-Nam

[Hardvark]

Chopping body parts off babies is most definitely abuse, should be illegal in my opinion. 

Even during the past when cleanliness was an issue, and still is in some parts of the world?

Female circumcision I totally agree is barbaric but male circumcision is always abuse?

-Nam

Male circumcision or any other procedure on medical grounds is fine by me, lopping bits off for religious reasons is abuse.

What if their god wasn't happy with the five toes on each foot, or earlobes?

Maybe we are lucky he was obsessed with foreskins.

[Nam]

Yes, but don't they originally coincide? If the Hebrews didn't say "This is God's command" back in the day (or in some parts of the world today that religion plays a huge role and cleanliness does not) do the you think those people would have done it? I mean, it's a sensitive part of the male anatomy. Of course not. Today, in most places it's not necessary however, religious people (the ones who truly believe) can't ignore a command such as that by their god(s).

A lot of what's in Scripture concerning such things aren't necessary today but it's difficult to wean people off all they know. You, and others call it abuse because of your current knowledge of health and while many religious people have that knowledge too it's not abuse in their minds because their god advocates it. That's saying their god is wrong -- if you were religious how would you like to be the one hearing that?

Now, medical doctors should know better, and some do. After all my medical doctor when I was born was a Lt. Colonel in the US Army, and he told my parents it wasn't necessary for me to get circumcised, and he explained to my Christian parents why and I wasn't.

Most know but some who are ignorant are ignorant because of their religion but it started in their religion for a good reason and in their minds: if it was good then, why not now?

That's how you have to approach it with the religious. Not say they're abusers or their god is. You'll get nowhere with such rhetoric.

-Nam

[Hardvark]

Yes, but don't they originally coincide? If the Hebrews didn't say "This is God's command" back in the day (or in some parts of the world today that religion plays a huge role and cleanliness does not) do the you think those people would have done it? I mean, it's a sensitive part of the male anatomy. Of course not. Today, in most places it's not necessary however, religious people (the ones who truly believe) can't ignore a command such as that by their god(s).

A lot of what's in Scripture concerning such things aren't necessary today but it's difficult to wean people off all they know. You, and others call it abuse because of your current knowledge of health and while many religious people have that knowledge too it's not abuse in their minds because their god advocates it. That's saying their god is wrong -- if you were religious how would you like to be the one hearing that?

Now, medical doctors should know better, and some do. After all my medical doctor when I was born was a Lt. Colonel in the US Army, and he told my parents it wasn't necessary for me to get circumcised, and he explained to my Christian parents why and I wasn't.

Most know but some who are ignorant are ignorant because of their religion but it started in their religion for a good reason and in their minds: if it was good then, why not now?

That's how you have to approach it with the religious. Not say they're abusers or their god is. You'll get nowhere with such rhetoric.

-Nam

Because that's like saying, stoning people to death was started for a 'good' reason, if it was 'good' then, why not now?

And I don't care if I offend the religious, they offend me.

If god was the one doing the act of circumcision I would agree, but it is his followers that practice it in his name, you would think the almighty would have got the design of the penis right in the first place, but as we know his incompetence is legendary.
 

[Crow]

Ashura

Warning NSFW or those who do not like grizzly images

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Only with religion.

[Dave]

Decided to bump this thread rather than start another.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are in the sights this time, in term of having rules that protect offenders and using religion as a barrier to reporting.

Children who were sexually abused by Jehovah's Witnesses were allegedly told by the organisation not to report it.

Apart from allegedly being told that reporting the offences, "...would bring reproach on Jehovah..." the cult's rules that "two witnesses" are necessary is self defeating. Any offender with more than two brain cells to talk to each other (yeah, OK, I agree) would ensure that there were no other witnesses.

Child abuse is not restricted to religions but they do seem to have greater inclination and more rules, as groups, to defend their members from the law.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Again, it's part of the rule that the more formally organized any religion gets, the worse it gets morally and legally.  If it's kept informal and personal, it can motivate folks to do good things.  When it becomes another corporation, it gets corrupted.

[Dave]

Again, it's part of the rule that the more formally organized any religion gets, the worse it gets morally and legally.  If it's kept informal and personal, it can motivate folks to do good things.  When it becomes another corporation, it gets corrupted.

Hmm, something to think about there, Bruce. I have often likened religions to industries but never linked their internal govenance to that. What is the analogue of the profit motivation. But, as before, an organised vertical hierachy implied authority or power and the possibility of corruption.

Also your mention of a "personal" belief seems, to me, to link the core intention of humanism to religion - stripping the origin and ideological issues away.

[SisterAgatha]

Pish posh, hogwash!

Religion is not child abuse. It offers children hope in this world and the world to come.

And what of Sufi Islam,Unitarianism, Reform Judaism and Progressive "Catholocism" (good joke.. I know!)

Are those abusive faiths?

[Davin]

Balderdash!

Religion is child abuse. It forces children into a world view that makes fantasy more important than reality.

And "what aboutism?" I guess we need more of that.

Yes, religions are abusive.