A couple of questions for atheists

[thesummerqueen]

You can't ask questions like these without some nuance. Taking a kid to a church or synagogue is not child abuse. If anything, in my case, it was good for me. Child abuse was the emotional and physical harm my father heaped on me irrespective of religion.

Abusive people use religion as a tool to extend their abuse. Non-abusive people don't.

[Alex K]

Abusive people use religion as a tool to extend their abuse. Non-abusive people don't.

That's too simplistic for me. There are for example plenty of people who get taught to be afraid of hell like crazy by their otherwise non-abusive parents, simply because the parents believe it, too.

[thesummerqueen]

Abusive people use religion as a tool to extend their abuse. Non-abusive people don't.

That's too simplistic for me. There are for example plenty of people who get taught to be afraid of hell like crazy by their non-abusive parents, simply because the parents believe it, too.

This is damaging, to be sure, but it's not technically abuse. It's the continuation of an irrational fear or superstition.

[robvalue]

I'm not sure I agree here.

Sure forget the church thing, that was just an extra.

I think parents can be well meaning, and they think they are giving their kid a good upbringing by instilling in them mystical truths, even about hell. This may well not be intended as abuse, but as what they deem necessary. Perhaps they "know no better". I don't think indoctrination is only going to come from otherwise abusive parents, although I'm open to the discussion of such if you think I'm wrong.

And yeah. I'm surprised anyone is doubting the harm it can cause long term. I've heard people compare it to PTSD. We had poor Q1C coming out of Mormonism and it left a heavy toll on him. I've heard so many stories. Even if only a few end up with these effects, that's too many. I think parents need to be told this is not OK.

Not so long ago, it was the done thing to beat the crap out of your kid with a belt. Then at some point, we decided this was wrong, and we taught parents better. I feel this is hardly any different.

[JuliaL]

Calling religious indoctrination 'child abuse' is unhelpful.

Once you've been absorbed into the Borg, you no longer have personal volition. It becomes unjust to blame and punish the victim.

Condemnation of the parent through semantics like 'child abuse' or a legislative attempt to curtail indoctrination is more likely to result in a hardening of the religionut's attitudes as a persecuted martyr and circling the wagons of the faith community.

Religions are brain eating zombie life forms without self awareness or personal thought. They are not vulnerable to shaming. Rather than an open attack on the parent, an indirect approach to weakening the roots of religion would be to remove their tax immunities.

[Alex K]

That's too simplistic for me. There are for example plenty of people who get taught to be afraid of hell like crazy by their non-abusive parents, simply because the parents believe it, too.

This is damaging, to be sure, but it's not technically abuse.

Why not, what is your criterion for differentiation between inflicting psychological trauma this way, or with what you would call abuse? (Honest question)

[robvalue]

Sure, doing it by law would be very hard, I agree. That's why I stated it as theoretical, just to gauge opinions.

I would think education is the way to go, if action is to be taken. Show parents the damage they are potentially doing. Teach them to be better parents.

[thesummerqueen]

There's a concept called "FLEAS" that you'll find a good explanation of on r/raisedbynarcissists that basically says that you can't escape 'catching' some of the same foibles as the people abusing you.

Abusers know what they're doing, for the most part. We can argue whether or not they're conscious of WHY they're doing what they're doing, but they definitely understand that they're hurting the person that they're abusing.

I didn't say that indoctrination only comes from abusive parents. I just don't consider indoctrination "abuse", necessarily.

[robvalue]

I don't know what else to call it. It's the abuse of a child, their mental state, their long term health, an abuse of power, an abuse of caregiving.

I don't see how it is not abuse. Whether or not it is intended to be abuse is beside the point.

---

But you agree it causes damage? What's the distinction?

[thesummerqueen]

But you agree it causes damage? What's the distinction?

Do you consider it child abuse if someone in their own ignorance imparts racism or a fear of black cats?