Is it a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs when they are too young to have thought about it?
Should the Bible be a part of public education?
McCulloch’s question:
Is the indoctrination of children into religious beliefs morally justified?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123475#p123475
twobitsmedia wrote:otseng wrote: Should the Bible be a part of public education?Absolutely. It is an important part of American Life. Even if it has to be presented with a disclaimer that says “theory”, it is a reality that cannot be denied. It is a piece of literature that has sold more than any publication in history. It has affected peoples lives–good and bad– in more ways that any publication
Not only American life, but also in other countries that has had any Biblical influence.
Dawkins surprised me with his position.
page 341 wrote:But the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source book for literary culture.
Of course, he doesn’t believe in the Bible, but he does say people should be literate about it.
page 344 wrote:I have probably said enough to convince at least my older readers that an atheistic world-view provides no justication for cutting the Bible, and other sacred books, out of our education.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123511#p123511
McCulloch wrote:The Bible should only be taught in public education in so far as it has been an important influence on our societies. The Bible should not be taught at public expense as a source of truth, ethics or divine revelation.
I think this would be a good middle ground in which all parties could reach a consensus.
Is it a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs when they are too young to have thought about it?
Though I wouldn’t necessarily call it “child abuse”, I would agree that parents should not label children as possessors of their parents’ beliefs. Just because one is born into a Christian family does not mean a child is a Christian. A child should of his own freewill decide what he would believe. This doesn’t mean that a parent is not free to influence the child’s thinking. But a parent should not decide for a child what he should believe.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123599#p123599
Cathar1950 wrote:I am not sure if children should be labeled but Jewish children are thought to be Jewish.
It’s because being Jewish is more cultural than religious. It is not a contradiction to be an atheist Jew. But I think the problem comes in when a Jew is forced to believe in JHVH. Or forced to marry within the Jewish community.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=123648#p123648
Scrotum wrote: No, it is the most horrible thing you could do to a child, and with a 90% certanity, will destroy the mind of the person, and make it very hard for them to accept logic and reality.The question could be stated as “Is the incest-rape of children into submission to its father morally justified?”
Do you have any evidence to back your assertions? If not, then your comments are nothing more than a blanket statement and a flame-bait opinion.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124178#p124178
Confused wrote:I have to wonder, if parents raised their daughter and son to believe that illness was the result of lack of faith or possession, is this child abuse?
I would say this is rarely taught among Christians. And there certainly is not much Biblical support for such a position.
If a parent raises their child to believe that the state funded school system is corrupt and encourages them to not attend, is this not neglect. If the parent encourages their child to fail biology because they believe it contradicts creationism, is this not neglect?
And I am not familiar with any parent that does these things.
I also have to alter my position a bit on the moderate side of Christianity. I realize that these aren’t the extremists that try to fund Jews to rebuild their temple to usher in the 2nd coming or the ones who blow up abortion clinics, but I have to say that after reading the rest of this chapter, Sam Harris book, and Michael Ruse, they make a valid point.
In the case of using violence against abortion doctors, there are Christians that publicly denounce this. But in the case of people helping to fund Jews, why should people denounce it? It’s not really doing any harm to anyone.
They don’t lobby for equal rights for same sex partnerships.
If Christians don’t lobby for same sex partnership rights then they are doing wrong?
So moderate Christianity may not be dangerous per se, but they are also guilty of either not following the teachings in the bible where they should be doing this or guilty of not physically engaging in stopping these extremists.
Well, all Christians are guilty of not following all the teachings of the Bible. No new news there.
As for physically engaging in stopping extremists, the only case that you mention that would make sense would be to stop violent actions against abortion doctors.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=124971#p124971
Confused wrote:otseng wrote:Confused wrote:I have to wonder, if parents raised their daughter and son to believe that illness was the result of lack of faith or possession, is this child abuse?I would say this is rarely taught among Christians. And there certainly is not much Biblical support for such a position.
Not a popular teaching, but one that occurs. This I know from experience.
Yes, I know it occurs. My point is simply that the Bible does not teach this.
otseng wrote:Confused wrote:If a parent raises their child to believe that the state funded school system is corrupt and encourages them to not attend, is this not neglect. If the parent encourages their child to fail biology because they believe it contradicts creationism, is this not neglect?And I am not familiar with any parent that does these things.
No, instead they send them to private religious schools.
Sending a child to a private school rather than a public school cannot be considered neglect.
Not harming anyone? By funding an organization to rebuild a temple that I was under the impression, had to be in the original spot of the old temple, a spot that now is inhabited by the Islamic Mosque (spelling?). The terms of the agreement are that the Jewish nation is not allowed to tear it down. That it must stand. There is legal battles to dispute this. Should this happen, what do you think the result will be?
To my knowledge, nobody has been harmed or killed over this so far.
How about stop interjecting in embryonic stem cell research, stop demoralizing same sex partnerships (if you don’t like it, don’t watch), stop trying to interfere with a persons right to chose, stop funding politician campaigns so they “owe” you and will support your position (granted, this isn’t just religion that is guilty of this, politics itself is quite corrupt without religions help), stop telling parents who are non-theists that they have condemned their children to hell.
So, are you suggesting to limit free speech?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125153#p125153
QED wrote:And what about the Holy Qur’an?
If a school decides they want to teach it, I say go for it.
But the difference between the Bible and the Quran is that the latter has had practically zero influence on Western culture. Whereas Dawkins himself lists almost 2 pages (pages 341-343) worth of Biblical references in use in English literature and conversations. And that is not even an exhaustive list.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125162#p125162
Confused wrote:Your free speech shouldn’t be inserted where it isn’t asked for.
But if someone is not allowed to speak unless it’s asked for, then it’s not free speech.
Personally, what I believe is the missing element is respect. People should be free to speak their minds on whatever they want, as long as it’s presented respectfully. Shouting “Baby killers!” at women entering abortion clinics is not respectful. Holding up a sign “Choose life” at abortion clinics would be respectful.
Of course the ideal situation would be what you’re saying. In that information is given when it’s requested for. But, sometimes one has to do what one thinks is right, even without getting permission for it.
Now, trying to steer this back to the OP.
In the case of children, we don’t ask children permission before we give them information. But there is a fine balance between “forcing” a child to believe something and teaching a child something. Suppose a child doesn’t want to learn to read. We know it’s important for a child to read. So, somehow we need to think of a way to get the child to read.
Religious people think it’s important for their child to believe in the same religion. Most do all they can to ensure this. But, would this be considered wrong? I don’t think so. But, it would only become wrong if the belief was forced onto a child against his will. Especially if it is an older child.
So, the indoctrination of children into a religious belief is morally acceptable. Forcing children into a religious belief is not.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125323#p125323
Confused wrote:Would you accept your child if he converted to Islam? Would you accept his choice and not tell him he was condemning himself to hell or try to convince him of the errors of his ways?
There is always that risk. All I can do is try to influence my children to what I believe is the right thing (and not only just religion). They ultimately will have to decide what they choose to believe and how they act. And I though I might not agree with their decisions, I would accept it.
I would also say that this is the same situation with God. Though Adam was created by God, He allowed Adam to have a free choice to disobey God. God wasn’t happy about it, but God never violated Adam’s freewill.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125537#p125537
bunyip wrote:Just what does it take to pry open the dogma-driven mind?
It’s going to take more than what Dawkins has presented. And judging from the participants of the book debate, I don’t sense that many non-Christians have been overly impressed with Dawkins’ arguments in his book. And certainly no Christians have been impressed at all.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=126607#p126607
bunyip wrote:It’s going to take more than what Dawkins has presented. And judging from the participants of the book debate, I don’t sense that many non-Christians have been overly impressed with Dawkins’ arguments in his book. And certainly no Christians have been impressed at all.Is that a significant surprise??
Judging from all the media coverage, the accolades from atheists of the book, the popularity of the book, and the book’s own claims, I expected more from it.
I’ve raised the issue of Dennett’s book before, only to be reprimanded for going “off-topic”
I wouldn’t mind having a book debate with any book of your choosing. Though this could not happen in the short term future, I’d be willing to put it in the queue. After this book debate ends, I’ve scheduled debating another person one-on-one. After that, I was thinking of doing another book debate with a theist (or neutral) leaning. Then we can go back to a book with a nontheist leaning.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=126783#p126783