Religious school = child abuse

[All Systems Go]

I was flipping though the channels yesterday (Sunday) and I stopped on the Heaven and Earth show on BBC1. Unsurprisingly this is a religious show (like Richard and Judy or this Morning but about God). I tuned in just in time to hear the woman reading an e-mial sent in by an angry viewer directed towads one of the panelists. From what it said and the guys responce I assume he said something along the lines of 'sending your child to a religious school is paramount to child abuse.' the e-mail was ranting about how he should ring up Childline or something and ask about tales of child abuse to understand what it really is. the guys response was that if people started sending their children to Labour, tory, Communist or Fascist schools then people would be up in arms because it would be a clear infringement of childrens rights.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

I was flipping though the channels yesterday (Sunday) and I stopped on the Heaven and Earth show on BBC1. Unsurprisingly this is a religious show (like Richard and Judy or this Morning but about God). I tuned in just in time to hear the woman reading an e-mial sent in by an angry viewer directed towads one of the panelists. From what it said and the guys responce I assume he said something along the lines of 'sending your child to a religious school is paramount to child abuse.' the e-mail was ranting about how he should ring up Childline or something and ask about tales of child abuse to understand what it really is. the guys response was that if people started sending their children to Labour, tory, Communist or Fascist schools then people would be up in arms because it would be a clear infringement of childrens rights.

What exactly are you trying to say here?

[All Systems Go]

I just thought it was an intersting comaprison to make and was wondering what everyone makes of this comparison.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Both sides are wrong.

[Dante Hicks]

I think Richard Dawkins makes a similar argument.

I oppose "faith" schools of whatever kind but I think it's ludicrous to compare it to child abuse unless it really really is bad. But then I wouldn't consider a White Supremacist school or Tory school to be much worse than a "religious" school.

As an aside what is a religious school? I went to a school where we had to say the Lords Prayer every day plus Grace plus sing religious (Christian) hymns. I finished school there as a strong atheist.

[MrL_JaKiri]

The problem is that the distinction hasn't been made between "religious" schools such as Dante mentioned and fundamentalist schools, like the Vardy Foundation in the NE.

[Filth]

I have attended a non - relgious school and am now at a church of england school. the difference now is minimal, the only differences are that in R.E u learn about religions - not 'issues' and there is relgious content in assembleys ie. a prayer which to be honest isnt bad in any school because religion isnt just about obeying god etc. its about morales as well. In the 6th form at my school only a handful have any relgious views anyway. Obviously this refers to a church of england faith school and i wouldnt know about any other faiths

[JonnyBGood]

The argument is a fairly interesting one concerning to what extent parents rights extend over their children. Personally I'd like to see a few fairly loose regulations put into place but the only ones you'd get accepted would be fairly pointless (but might do some good).

[Tactitus]

I'd probably take a religious school over a state-funded school (unless it were a state-funded religious school, but we don't really have those here in the US). Ideally there would be a wide range of choices and you pick the one you want.

If a parent feels strongly about something (religion, rationality, marxism, etc) then why wouldn't/shouldn't they send their children to a school that emphasizes those values (assuming such a school is available/affordable)? It's not child abuse to want to pass your values to your children; athough some parents/schools are so heavy-handed that it might seem that way. :/ But then some children seem to assume the opposite values of their parents, so maybe it all works out.

[JonnyBGood]

I'd hate to see any child sent to a school that taught that the right to freedom of speech is irrelevant or can be ignored if your god tells you it's okay.

[Deepflow]

i don't think id send my child to a school that espoused all my beliefs, whatever they may be. Imo it would be up for them to work things out on their own, "helping" them on their way wouldn't really help at all.

[Tis]

Children get taught a belief set at whatever school they go to... its part of the process of growing up. I have no real problem with parents being able to choose whether that be a secular belief set or a religious one. To be honest they have more right to it than the state, which dictates the morals/values that one finds in a public school.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'd hate to see any child sent to a school that taught that the right to freedom of speech is irrelevant or can be ignored if your god tells you it's okay.

I'm not aware of any religions that put 'direct commands from god' secondary to secular laws or even human rights. If your god commands you to park in front of a fire hydrant then I really think you have no choice but to do so. Hopefully, your god will also cough up the money to pay the parking fine too; but I'm not a theologian.

[Banned]

I've never heard of any religion that gives you money. I've heard of plenty that work the other way around though.

[Nusselt]

I agree with jakiri a 'religious' school doesn't mean they stick you in a corner and brain wash you into creationism, besides every state school in britain is required to give a broadly christian act of daily worship. As far as im aware religious schools are required to teach the national Cirriculum they just have their own religious practises, praying etc included in the timetable.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tis

Children get taught a belief set at whatever school they go to... its part of the process of growing up. I have no real problem with parents being able to choose whether that be a secular belief set or a religious one. To be honest they have more right to it than the state, which dictates the morals/values that one finds in a public school.

Some belief sets are better than others (in the framework of producing non-tyrannical mass murderers). Obviously most distinctions are far more difficult and fine but there should be some safeguards in place against parents being free to send their children to a school which teaches that it's good to kill people of a different race or rape women if they don't follow your religion.

[Yahwe]

The only important thing a child needs to learn is to ask questions.

preferably about everything and preferably to do so forever.

provided this is achieved individual doctrines or creeds are irrelevant. I question however wether those who run faith based schools would expound this truism. I suspect those who adhere to a doctrine or creed are more likely to fear questions than promote them.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Some belief sets are better than others (in the framework of producing non-tyrannical mass murderers). Obviously most distinctions are far more difficult and fine but there should be some safeguards in place against parents being free to send their children to a school which teaches that it's good to kill people of a different race or rape women if they don't follow your religion.

You can make extreme examples to support either point, though where the tyrannical mass murder bit specifically connects to private religious schools I'm not sure. But to wax philosophical, a society is generally held stable by a group of commonly accepted behavior patterns or rights. The purpose of a democratic government is not to enforce an intellectual agreement the with the social norm but to regulate behavior, especially that which infringes on the rights of others.

To take your example of racism, it’s not the government's job to make sure nobody thinks like a racist. Its function is to make sure that they don’t let that racist belief affect others in any tangible way, whether that be by beating someone up or passing them over for a job. To be sure, this sometimes extends to pre-emptive measures. I'd include things like gun regulations, traffic laws, and a whole lot of other things in this area, along with the sort of incitement to violence that you mention.

Say you have a bunch of flat-earthers. In a free society, they are perfectly entitled to believe the earth is flat, and to try and convince others of it if they like. The free exchange of ideas is how societies evolve. Eventually the stronger of two rival beliefs will, in rather Darwinian fashion, win the day. Now, if the flat earthers decided to combat the 'proof' the rest of us have by throwing disbelievers off cliffs, then it would be the government’s job to make sure it didn’t happen.

Culturally speaking, beliefs are a self-regulating system. A government’s job is to regulate threatening behavior and punish behavior which imposes on the socially perceived rights of others. I think fuzzy point at the center of this thread is at what point a belief can become a legitimate behavioral threat. On this point decent people will disagree, especially when you factor in elements like the sensitivity of children to radical indoctrination. That said, I think there’s a world of difference between, say, teaching a child the world is flat and teaching him other humans are an acceptable food source. In the case of the former, it is up to the kid to see through the nonsense, in the case of the latter those safeguards are most certainly called for.


oof... this ended up a bit longer than I'd intended.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

I question however wether those who run faith based schools would expound this truism. I suspect those who adhere to a doctrine or creed are more likely to fear questions than promote them.

Having attended both, I never found this a serious problem, though undoubtedly you could find a few exceptions. If anything, the religious school was more open to 'secular' questions (ie. evolution) than the secular school was to questions based on religion ( I dont mean religious questions, but questions on normal topics stemming from a religious belief/upbringing ). I think this stems from religious people more and more feeling as if they have to justify their beliefs, the secular institution was confident/secure enough that had a tendancy to dismiss some outside beliefs as irrelevent. Which isnt to say they are or arent, simply that they are not open for discussion in that environment which I think is what youre after.

Agree with the importance of individual intellectual exploration though.

[Dante Hicks]

I think the child abuse argument is more concerned with the possible effects of an extreme upbringing (of whatever kind) could have on the individual in question, not on society generally. Let's say you were brought up to believe that computers were fundamentally evil (or just to be feared) and later in life you couldn't get a job. Would this be a form of "abuse"? Could you sue your parents / guardians? The belief in question is not particularly "dangerous" to society, but might be to an individual.

It seems like a stretch but you can see where the argument is coming from.

edit : It's also clear that the damage a specific type of upbringing does not have to be practical in this sense. I have encountered people who had a number of irrational phobias which caused them a great deal of emotional problems in later life. Many of these phobias stemmed from some of the things they were taught as a child. Obviously there's a line somewhere.

[Tis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think the child abuse argument is more concerned with the possible effects of an extreme upbringing (of whatever kind) could have on the individual in question, not on society generally. Let's say you were brought up to believe that computers were fundamentally evil (or just to be feared) and later in life you couldn't get a job. Would this be a form of "abuse"? Could you sue your parents / guardians? The belief in question is not particularly "dangerous" to society, but might be to an individual.

It seems like a stretch but you can see where the argument is coming from.

edit : It's also clear that the damage a specific type of upbringing does not have to be practical in this sense. I have encountered people who had a number of irrational phobias which caused them a great deal of emotional problems in later life. Many of these phobias stemmed from some of the things they were taught as a child. Obviously there's a line somewhere.

Dont see your example working... generally in their early-mid teens children start to make their own decisions on what their personal beliefs will be. If they ignored outside influences and continued to believe computers were evil, it is there decision from then till the point they change it. If they choose not to accept that computers were evil, there is still plenty of time to learn enough about computers to get most jobs out there.

That said, I understand your point. I think, however, that the point of individual responsibility preceeds most of the outcomes youre talking about. Thats partially why children who commit crimes are treated differently than adults. No matter what view was the primary one presented in your education, you are still morally responsible for the decisions you make when you become an adult.

That said, if the parents werent just teaching the child that computers were evil, but cutting off every possible source of a conflicting opinion and denying him the opportunity to explore those, then I'd certainly object. In that case I think it would probably be considered violating the child's rights and be correctable on that count.

edit: The phobia point just isnt something the government can regulate, in my opinion, as unfortunate as the outcome may be. As a child, I watched a movie, which wasnt particularly violent, in which a house burned down and a bunch of people died. The movie was approved for children, but for whatever unknown reason, that scene had a huge impact on me. For weeks I had nightmares about the house burning down while I was asleep. It got to the point where I was showering as fast as I could so when the house caught fire, I wouldnt be forced to run ouside in the nude. Should the government have banned that movie? Should my parents get in trouble for showing it to me? Because it was an abnormal, unanticipated response, I dont think so. If some action can be consistently shown to cause psychological harm, then you have a case for abuse and regulation of the action.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tis

Dont see your example working... generally in their early-mid teens children start to make their own decisions on what their personal beliefs will be.

I think the issue here is that a child's scope is going to be limited by the school they go to and the community they live in. In most cases kids can see from television or other kids in their school that there are alternatives. Perhaps the reason people are concerned about schools is because it (combined with family) forms pretty much your whole conception of the world until a given age. If my parents were fundamentalist Christians and everyone at my school was a fundamentalist Christians, and I didn't own a TV...perhaps I'd find it hard to conceive of people who weren't that way. Your point is of course broadly correct however.

you are still morally responsible for the decisions you make when you become an adult.

Again, I'm not soley talking about practical outcomes. The individual I was talking about earlier used to have panic attacks (partially) because of the extremley superstitious upbringing they received. Were they morally responsible for having panic attacks? Possibly, I guess. What if they had panic attacks because their father hit them repeatedly with a belt every Tuesday evening - would they still be responsible?

I guess what I'm talking about is not specific beliefs ("The world is flat", "Evolution is a lie") but more of a psychological-mindset that certain upbringings can foster ("I am evil and dirty and no-one loves me"). Intellectual beliefs can be overcome - sometimes easily. I can read a book and realise that something I was taught at school was horseshit. But the latter types of issue is a lot harder to overcome.

That said, if the parents werent just teaching the child that computers were evil, but cutting off every possible source of a conflicting opinion and denying him the opportunity to explore those, then I'd certainly object. In that case I think it would probably be considered violating the child's rights and be correctable on that count.

Agreed. But I think defining this is pretty difficult. What if parents "cut things off" by simple omission (rather than restriction?).

[Zar]

I went to a secular school. We were taught the basics of the major faiths, but weren't encouraged to embrace any religion.

Christianity was discreetly frowned upon, although the teachers would never admit it.

[Tis]

Missed your edit at first, see mine.

The point about scope. It is, again, something that is impossible to regulate. Laws in our culture dont provide a guarantee of equality of experience. Its a hard concept to explain though. A child's opportunities are always going to be limited by a wide variety of factors including where they grow up, the wealth of their parents, who their available friends are, etc. For example, I probably would have done better in my early school years if my parents had had the money for an expensive, professional tutor. While the law guarantees that I have as much right to have one as the rich kid down the road, it doesnt guarantee that I will get one. In that sense, my opportunities are limited by my situation. Similarly, I have as much right to play sports as anyone, but being a short white kid with no great natural skills, the law does not guarantee me a $50,000,000 contract as a professional athelete. Sometimes these limitations are physical, sometimes they are based on the conditions under which my life takes place. While it may be unfortunate (debatable), it is not something that the government can or should regulate.

I would feel for a kid raised in the kind of environment you discribe, but at some point he is going to realize the situation he is in, and, as he approaches adulthood, make decisions concerning it. The simple fact is, in the game of life, we get delt different hands. At times it really sucks, but if 'equality' were persued to its extreme the world would be a damn boring place. It is our decisions, based on the opportunities we are given in life, that make us the unique individuals we all are.

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Banned

I've never heard of any religion that gives you money. I've heard of plenty that work the other way around though.

well if your name is John Paul or L Ron Hubbard, you would have been in a religion which gives you money

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The problem is that the distinction hasn't been made between "religious" schools such as Dante mentioned and fundamentalist schools, like the Vardy Foundation in the NE.

yeap. fundy schools are a massive concern. especially when the head makes comments about science and evolution that demonstrate that he has absolutely no understanding of either.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tis

You can make extreme examples to support either point, though where the tyrannical mass murder bit specifically connects to private religious schools I'm not sure. But to wax philosophical, a society is generally held stable by a group of commonly accepted behavior patterns or rights. The purpose of a democratic government is not to enforce an intellectual agreement the with the social norm but to regulate behavior, especially that which infringes on the rights of others.

To take your example of racism, it’s not the government's job to make sure nobody thinks like a racist. Its function is to make sure that they don’t let that racist belief affect others in any tangible way, whether that be by beating someone up or passing them over for a job. To be sure, this sometimes extends to pre-emptive measures. I'd include things like gun regulations, traffic laws, and a whole lot of other things in this area, along with the sort of incitement to violence that you mention.

Say you have a bunch of flat-earthers. In a free society, they are perfectly entitled to believe the earth is flat, and to try and convince others of it if they like. The free exchange of ideas is how societies evolve. Eventually the stronger of two rival beliefs will, in rather Darwinian fashion, win the day. Now, if the flat earthers decided to combat the 'proof' the rest of us have by throwing disbelievers off cliffs, then it would be the government’s job to make sure it didn’t happen.

Culturally speaking, beliefs are a self-regulating system. A government’s job is to regulate threatening behavior and punish behavior which imposes on the socially perceived rights of others. I think fuzzy point at the center of this thread is at what point a belief can become a legitimate behavioral threat. On this point decent people will disagree, especially when you factor in elements like the sensitivity of children to radical indoctrination. That said, I think there’s a world of difference between, say, teaching a child the world is flat and teaching him other humans are an acceptable food source. In the case of the former, it is up to the kid to see through the nonsense, in the case of the latter those safeguards are most certainly called for.


oof... this ended up a bit longer than I'd intended.

The problem here lies in the fact that the miseducation of children severely undermines the entire point of a democratic government. At some point one needs some sort of bill of rights. If we're going to accept those truths as self-evident it seems fairly silly to allow children to be instructed differently in these areas. Equally something which can be shown to be false (eg the earth being flat) should not be taught to children.

Reading your later posts indeed differences arise between people due to circumstances and sometimes these can't be addressed, but as you say there's a "world of difference" between a child playing more sports and ending up as better athelete and a child being systematically lied to or taught that infringing on other's rights is acceptable. Within the framework of being human it's difficult to say which is better, a businessman or a basketball player, however you can say that a murderer is worse than someone who is not a murderer (as regards these individual aspects of each person). Equally I don't see the point of telling a child (through education) that the earth is flat when it isn't. Why run the risk of he or she believing this and running the risk of having this **** up things later on?

[Marilyn Manson]

The chap's argument was that we would consider sending a child to a Nazi school or a Marxist-Leninist school abuse of the child's rights, so why not apply the same judgement with faith schools? IIRC.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't think dante would consider sending a child to a marxist-leninist school abuse