Is teaching faith-based beliefs as fact child abuse?

Great Debates
1

Should parents have the right to teach children falsehoods? Should parents be allowed to tell their children that God really exists if they cannot back up their claims with evidence?

What about the more obvious case of a parent teaching his/her child that the world is flat or that evolution is a lie?

Or that people should blow themselves up for God?

Why should parents be allowed to warp the minds of their children just because they supplied the sperm and the egg? We don’t let parents beat their children. Why should we allow them to teach faith-based beliefs as fact? Or even worse, allow them to warp their children minds into believing that known facts are really lies?

2

Should parents have to present proof to a child before they tell them not to play in the street? So it would go like this: allow the child to play in the street until a car hits the child. Then and only then would a parent be justified in telling a child it was dangerous to play in the street.

I am an atheist.

3

No. We know that playing in the street is dangerous. The evidence does not have to be presented to the child. We know the evidence exists. The evidence does not have to always be presented to the child. The problem comes in when the parent teaches the child something for which there is no evidence. Or that the evidence goes against.

You see no problem with teaching children falsehoods or things for which there is no evidence.

(Also, there would be no problem with teaching children about things for which there is not evidence or that the evidence goes against. But these things should not be taught as fact.)

4

So what should happen to parents who teach their kid that God exists? Kids shipped off to foster care? Prison?

This conversation has become tiresome.

5

No.

Feeding them to Tigers is child abuse.

6

We would need to set up punishment. Such as providing a case worker, providing a teacher to the child to counter-act the falsehoods taught, and if need be taking away the child (but that is a last resort).

Answer these questions, do you think parents should have the right to teach their children that things are facts for which there is no evidence? Should parents have the right to teach their children lies as facts? Do you care about the children being lied to?

7

We generally don’t consider telling kids about Santa Claus to be abuse. In fact most people consider it a healthy fantasy.

Threatening kids with eternal hellfire? You might be able to sell me on that one.

8

I consider it a form of child abuse, rather like deliberately infecting them with a chronic disease or addicting them to a drug. What can be done about it ? Nothing.

9

Would do our best about your other examples. Sure those problems still exist, but d you think nothing can be done about? All it takes is a change in society’s will.

10

If you want to discuss the tiger issue please do so in the other thread. I will just say that I am not saying that it don’t be rough for the kids being fed to the tigers, but we have to do something to help the tigers. Some will have to sacrifice more than others.

11

No, you answer these questions.

Do you think the government has the right to determine judicially which ideas have no evidence and which do, and what constitutes “teaching” that those things are facts? Should government have the right to regulate each and every conversation a parent has with a child? Do you care about INSTITUTING A FUCKING FASCIST DICTATORSHIP?

12

We could feed only the kids who have been contaminated by “faith” to the Tigers.

(Since you didn’t just direct me to the other thread–you also commented on it in your reply.)

13

Hmmm. Yet another guest poster joining the militant atheist brigade. Oh joy. If there’s one thing we need around here, it’s more of those.

And no, it is not child abuse.

14

Do you have kids?

Cause I’d be really interested in seeing a complete list of what you’ve taught them. And how you’d back up each and every one of them with evidence.

15

Further, I see a slippery slope here. Two, actually.

For one, if you would have a hard time distinguishing between religious beliefs and other beliefs. Jesus loves you, the Earth is flat, Madge down the street had an affair with the milkman, and if you sit too close to the TV you’ll ruin your eyes. All false, but some people could easily be convinced that all are 100% true. Do you take away someone’s kids because they were not allowed to sit three feet from the TV? I think you’d have a hell of a time legislating that. If nothing else, parents would have to consult a helluva long list on what is true and what is not.

For the other, you’re going on the assumption that all religion is a lie. You may not believe in it, I certainly don’t, but neither of us can conclusively prove it to be false. In fact that’s one of the hugest debates in the world today. No one has any solid proof on either side. If you’re going to pass laws that let you mess with families, then you’d better bring something more tangible to the table.

No way it would pass as law.

16

You won’t answer my question but want me to answer yours? OK.

Yes. We let the government determine which medical treatments are backed by evidence and which parents can use for their children. No parent is allowed to treat cancer with vitamin C.

Where do you get that from? Many parents are openly about teaching children these things. Also, all children should be required to go to public schools where their beliefs can be tested and where these beliefs come from. Sure some parents will lie to their children in such a way as to slip through, but we can save a lot of these kids.

Parents are already warping their children’s minds. Steps need to be taken to fix this problem. But it won’t require a fascist dictatorship. Where did I ever mention creating a dictator?

17

But society’s will is the will of the religious; that’s why nothing can be done.

18

I think, although a slippery slope is already being slid down every time Lemur posts, we can actually bring this conversation back, if there’s a slight rephrase of the OP.

In particular, we need to set standards of “abuse” and at what point this particular topic causes it. From what I know, the general legal standards for things like this involve “causing harm”, similarly, from psychology, the DSM standard for diagnosis always includes a disclaimer that it “impairs social or occupational functioning” (might seem irrelevant, but I’m merely bringing it in as examples of what constitutes something that can one can take action on)

Now, we have to determine if the teaching of faith-based beliefs causes actual harm.
I have met, in fact, people who I would say have been caused actual and irrepearable harm to their psychology and chances at living a fulfilled life due to the incredible amount of close-mindedness that their parents had instilled in them. The people who truly cannot get along with a vast majority of society due to the incredible misconceptions placed upon them by their parents. Now, this is a slippery slope, because how would one determine at what point to introduce the child to alternative theories? It’s impossible.

However, we CAN address and in fact I believe there are legal precedents, for beliefs that prevent certain necessary medical procedures (in particular, from a recent thread here about Jehovah’s Witnesses, blood transfusions) that arguably cause Actual Harm to a child who is not allowed to receive a life-saving medical procedure.

Furthermore, in the area of sexual education. I believe it should be necessary for teenagers to receive sexual education. Again, a personal anecdote about harm caused to a teen, she fell victim to the abusive notion of “if you really love me you’ll have sex with me”, the #1 “stupid reason to have sex” taught in many sex education courses. Additionally, for adolescents who fail to receive sex ed due to being opted out by parents and choose to be sexually active anyways, they lack knowledge of safe sex. Again, same person, didn’t even realize that “pulling out” wasn’t safer than condoms, because of the incredible repression of sexual education by her parents. Because of her relationship troubles above, among a few other things, she had to have counseling. Luckily, she didn’t get pregnant, but again, the chances of harm being done were increased greatly by the refusal to overcome factually incorrect “faith-based” education

All things considered, if a faith-based approach will cause actual harm when compared to a secular teaching, we MUST give children the knowledge necessary to protect themselves, regardless of what their parents think

19

There is no problem with teaching children about religious beliefs or that these things are possible. The problem is teaching that they definitely true.

20

Let’s work to change that. Slavery was once the will of society.