Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion

So you don't think parents psychologically abusing their children by using religion and causing that child to live in constant fear and terror of God's punishment and/or hell is abuse?

And no, I am not kidding. There are parents out there who do psychologically abuse their children and do it with a Bible in one hand and those children end up being scarred for life as a result. You're damn right I'm not kidding when I say that those parents should lose custody of their children.

 

Of course I don't agree with what they did.

But using religion as a form of psychological abuse to strike fear and terror in children is abuse in my opinion. It would be equally abusive for me to tell my children that if they ever believed in God or joined a religion, that I would beat them or disown them and not allow them back into the house and to keep using that as a threat and psychologically abusing them in such a fashion.

 

Let me see if I get this straight.

You don't think a parent who has their children living in a constant state of fear, telling them that if they don't do this or that, don't believe in this and that, they will be punished by God and live in eternal hell... You don't see that as being abusive?

You do realise you are proving Dawkins point, don't you?

 

How so?

Missionaries took the children away because the parents did not believe in God. What makes you think my position on this matter supports their warped sense of right?

You're still not getting it...

If there is a situation where a child is being psychologically abused by its parents who are using religion to abuse their children, then yes, that child needs to be removed from that household. The same as a child should be removed from an atheists care if that atheist parent psychologically abuses their child through use of fear and/or threats.

 

At the end of the day, Sam, you need to determine whether psychological abuse on a child merits the child being removed from that household.

You also then need to evaluate your sense of right and wrong and determine for yourself whether a parent who causes their child to live in constant fear of hell and damnation is psychologically abusing their child.. Whether their actions can be classified as being abusive or not when it comes within the realm of religious belief.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The same could be said for a parent who believed that having sex with their children is not abuse because they were simply brought up to believe that it is normal for mummy or daddy to slip into his/her bed at night and have sex with them. After all, if that parent believed as such, then it would be "remiss" of that parent to not "communicate" or do the same to their child...

 

The danger to a child does not simply stop at physical, Sam.

A child who is psychologically abused by its parents or caregivers can be equally, if not more, damaged as those who are physically or sexually abused.

And bringing a child up to live in constant fear and feeding that fear and holding it over their head as a form of punishment, be it religious or otherwise, is abuse.

It is all well and good to say that it is up to the community to solve the parent's issues, but it is also very selfish. Because at the end of the day, you are damning that child's future and allowing them to be continually psychologically abused. The same can be said for children who live in households where the mother is a constant victim of domestic abuse and while knowing the father will never hit the children, allowing them to remain that that kind of atmosphere is allowing their own psychological abuse to continue.

 

The argument for taking away the Aboriginal children was that because they were half caste, they could face abuse from the family of the mother. The real reason the children were taken away was because of the hope that they would then breed with other white Australians and there was the hope that full blooded Aboriginals would simply die out. It was called the white Australia policy.

You way wish to look at all the justifications given for taking the children away, but at the end of the day, the real reason was the White Australia Policy.

And no, I do not support it, nor would I support such a policy today.

But again, different issue.

You don't believe that children who are psychologically abused in the home should be removed from the care of their abusers, correct? I think they should be. Regardless of religious belief or no religious belief.

That is what the distinction that Dawkins was trying to make. That if someone psychologically abuses their children and does it under the guise of their religious belief, the child remains in the home. But a parent who knocks their child's teeth out are jailed and the child removed from their care. The distinction is that psychological abuse is just as bad as physical abuse. But it is not treated equally.

 

Is she invoking the fear of God and hell and all other deities and suspicions into them if they dare question or not believe? Is she forcing them to believe, punishing them if they do not? Is she threatening them with physical abuse or other forms of abuse if they do not believe as she does?

Or is she teaching them what she knows and allowing them to make up their own minds about it all?

If she is allowing them to be free to make up their own minds and is not psychologically abusing them through the use of fear and threats, why should her children be taken away from her?

 

I was brought up in a strict Catholic household and never once did either of my parents tell me I was going to hell if I did not brush my teeth before bedtime. I was not brought up in a psychologically abusive childhood. I was also brought up in a household that was living below the poverty line for the majority of my childhood and sometimes, we were homeless in that we had to live with my grandparents and aunts and uncles because of high unemployment which resulted in my father being unemployed. This was of course, before we migrated to Australia. But never once, even in all the stress that my parents were under, did they bring the fear of God into me. Even when I stopped believing, my parents did not cause me to feel fear, nor was I punished for my atheism. On the contrary, my father's family were heavily into witchcraft and even when they sneaked me off to see some witchdoctor and I was told that my asthma was caused by a demonic possession, my parents were quick to rectify it (when I blabbed to my parents on my aunt who had taken me to the idiot when I was 5) and explained to me that my asthma is a medical condition and that there is no such thing as demonic possession and they also denied my father's family access to me until they stopped trying to foist their beliefs on me. I did not see or was allowed to have any contact with my father's two sisters for well over 3 years after that episode.

If she (the mother in the picture) is beating her children and causing them to live in a constant state of fear or forcing them into prostitution, then yes, outside interference is needed. The children should be removed from her care and she should be given parenting classes and/or some form of help. If it is not, then it only ensures that the cycle of abuse will continue.

------------------------------------------------

I'll have to continue this debate later. My youngest is having a reaction to his immunisation shots he had last Friday and we're taking him back to the doctors.