Indoctrination = Child Abuse?
Lately I’ve been seeing a lot of discussion of whether or not it is child abuse to indoctrinate your children into your beliefs. This poses a fascinating and difficult question.
in·doc·tri·nate
2. To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view.
For the first definition; if a parent had any set of beliefs it would be nearly impossible to not simply teach their child about it. Children are curious, doubly so about anything that interests their parents. I made a decision to not inundate my daughter with discussion of my beliefs before she was ever even born. I have never sat her down and said, “mommy believes in Jesus and this is why”. Yet, if she sees me reading my Bible she asks me what I’m doing, and then follows up with questions about whatever I tell her. She wants to know. I find it hard to believe that I could be seen as guilty of abusing her simply by being willing to involve her in my world.
The second definition seems more negative- to imbue with a partisan point of view. That I think is inherently wrong. One should never teach their child in a way that poisons them against other people. I find it wrong when parents teach their five year old that all of their friends are going to hell. A child that young has a hard enough time dealing with the concept of death. To add in to that equation the idea that their friends may die, and when they do they might be in eternal torment is unreasonably cruel. I believe that there are some teachings that should wait until the child is old enough to reason. I also believe it’s wrong to inundate a young child with teachings of sin. Yes, we should teach our children good behaviors, but that stands outside the need for reasoning about retribution (especially eternal!). You can teach your child not to lie or not to hurt someone without adding God into the equation.
The simple truth is that while it’s not wrong to say, “this is what I believe” when asked, some parents go overboard to the extreme. I’ve seen five year old kids go up front to say the “sinner’s prayer”. Why would a child that young do it? A five year old is far too young to make an educated decision about the path the rest of their life should take. They are far too young to understand religion beyond rhetoric. To put things simply: they are simply doing what they believe their parents want of them, which means that they are not acting out of their own best interest. I find it highly embarrassing when parents applaud very young children who are parroting what they’ve heard. I’ve had a young child tell me that by having a tattoo I was sinning, to her mother’s smile. I felt embarrassed for them both. The little girl obviously couldn’t have read the verses in question or understood their nuances even if she could, so she must have been told by her mother. She was acting to please the mother and the mother was obviously pleased.
We need to be wary. A lot of Christian doctrine is heavy colored by shame, guilt and repentance. Those emotions could twist a little mind in very bad ways if not dealt with delicately. If you don’t want your child to spend their entire life in fear then you need to be careful what you expose them to and why. Do NOT let your child feel like all of their friends are going to hell and it is their fault. Don’t let them feel like if they do not pray the “sinner’s prayer” they themselves are going to hell. Don’t make them think that they are somehow failing you if they do not parrot every ideological argument that comes out of your mouth. Do not use their love for you as a tool to force them into religion.
As parents we need to be aware that for the first part of our children’s lives, a lot of their drive comes from their desire to be loved and accepted, by peers and parents. If all of a child’s friends are Christian and their parents constantly indoctrinate them, they will emulate NOT because they believe but because they want to be like everyone else. If you want your child to have a real and personal faith, you need to let them come to it on their own.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with explaining your faith and answering your child’s questions. If you act ashamed or embarrassed, your child will think that faith is something to be ashamed of. But if you constantly drill your very young child on the finer points of faith, right down to who is sinning and who is going to burn in hell, you’re doing something wrong. By the time your kid is ten to thirteen, they will be old enough to understand nuance and research things themselves. Let them find their own faith.
It will be stronger that way.
Carey replied:
Just for the record - much of what you wrote is right-on. For instance, no person should ever “poison” their child against others… but teaching them TRUTH is not doing that, it’s teaching them how to deal with reality. The fact is that some believe that there is such a thing as heaven and hell and that some will go to one place and some will go to another. That is what they believe is TRUE. It is eternal child-abuse NOT to teach your child those realities, at whatever age they can receive them. That doesn’t HAVE to translate into a condemning attitude toward others, but rather a heart of compassion.
You said that you can teach your child right behavior without bringing God into it. I beg to differ. If there is no “absolute” standard behind those “right” behaviors (God) then your child will legitimately come to the place where they begin to question “why” about every moral behavior you have taught them. If there is no rule-Giver who is righteous, then there is no such things a a “righteous” rule and consequently no such thing as “righteous” behavior.
To say, “Let them find their own faith” is equal to saying, “Let them make up their own mind about drugs, or driving while intoxicated, or whether they should kill someone…” It’s pollyanna idealism that isn’t based on anything except emotion and fear. It’s WRONG to let your kids find their own way when you, as the parent, through years of experience can save them the agony of having to do it the “hard way.” That’s your job as a parent - especially in matters of faith. IF their eternal destiny is what hangs in the balance, a parent should be concerned about that above all things. It’s abuse to leave that up to them.
February 18, 2008 at 1:39 pm. Permalink.
shush replied:
I both agree and disagree with you. The truth is that it IS possible to teach a child moral principles without introducing God, just as it’s possible to teach them not to put their hand on a hot stove without introducing fire. A very young child will learn because that is what children do- they emulate and imitate. Look at this logically: a three year old doesn’t even understand the concept of other people feeling pain- so how is that child old enough to understand moral absolutes? You can’t even teach a toddler not to poke someone because it hurts! Rules for a very young child are always, “do this or I will discipline you”. There is NO room for reason.
I firmly believe that if a child is to have a strong faith, they do have to make the decision to believe for themselves. I myself went through a deep crisis of faith when I moved away from my parents, and every other person I know who was raised in the faith did the same. I want my children to always know that they have chosen their own beliefs so that they are spared the years of pain that I myself and my friends endured. Perhaps there is no guarantee.
All I know is that my three year old daughter isn’t going to burn in hell if she dies tonight, so there is no reason to use that kind of logic yet.
February 18, 2008 at 1:54 pm. Permalink.
Kelly replied:
I’m an atheist and I do the right thing because it’s the right thing, not because I think some Righteous rule-Giver will throw me into a pit of fire because I don’t.
It’s a little simplistic to say that if you don’t raise your kids to believe in God, they’re going to be horrible and they’ll never do anything good.
I think what L. means is that fear (fear of hell, fear of not pleasing the parents) is not a good motivational tool to bring children to religion.
February 18, 2008 at 1:55 pm. Permalink.
shush replied:
Kelly: thanks!
While one can argue that without God there is no moral absolute, I don’t think there is any way to argue that without BELIEF in God there is no moral absolute. Society has accepted that things like lying, cheating and stealing are morally wrong. I believe that it was Richard Dawkins who said in a debate with William Lane Craig that he believes in moral right and wrong because he’s not a sociopath.
which makes me kind of giggle, because, well… honestly?
People who cannot be reasoned into realizing that hurting others is wrong are, well, sociopaths.
And you got it right. I was simply saying that using fear or using our children’s love to manipulate is wrong.
February 18, 2008 at 2:01 pm. Permalink.
hetta replied:
Man! This was awesome!
I really do hope some people who need to read this come across it. Dave and I feel the same way about how we should raise our kids. We don’t want to saturate our children with those “churchy” ideas that are really brainwashing. We’d like our child to be exposed to some of the things we like, pick and choose the things they like and not just do and mimic “christian” things.
I know Dave’s sister has been raising her daughter in a very similar way that you speak. I think, one day when we were visiting, Dave said something about something being “nerdy” and our niece’s response was: “We don’t talk like that.” If she is so aggressive to say this to another adult, what will she be saying to kids her age or younger? I mean, even I thought, gee shame on us I guess!
I know the way we raise our kids will be under a watchful, disapproving eye by some family members and I think I can safely say that Dave can’t wait. It makes me angry though, because I think we are good people who do believe in God and who believe in kindness to others in all walks of life. I don’t think we are slipping and sliding because we don’t go to church every Sunday and sing “Jesus loves me.” However, in the eyes of a lot of fund-y types, we are not living like Christians. Like you, I see us exposing our kids to a lot of things within reason and then letting them ask questions.
Obviously, when it comes to children, I believe there should be rules where they apply, but that child being inundated with “spiritual” behavior could and is very damaging. What happens is another very judgmental person is manufactured in the factory of legalism– someone who looks down her nose at others instead of being loving and being an example that is not blatantly pompous.
I remember as a child and going to church and Sunday school and various other activities. It was a small town so there were a lot of kids in my church that I also saw at school every day. I remember how poorly I was treated at school and church and excluded by those seemingly better kids. I was never included in their circles. I also remember that a lot of the girls were quite loose and sleezy looking and yet they were the ones who sang “Jesus loves Me” at a very early age and were being pushed down the aisle to accept christ a the age of 4 or 5. I wasn’t baptized until I was nearly 15 and really understood what that meant in my life. I’m glad I waited.
I think often times the people who outwardly sing the songs and talk the talk are the most vicious, gross of them all hiding their scaly skeletons behind the bright, purple curtain. The reason they seem gross to me– they’ve never gained any wisdom because they’ve been too caught up in the acting. As a result, so have their kids and on and on.
Anyway, I’m off topic now I think.
February 18, 2008 at 2:47 pm. Permalink.
jaklumen replied:
I find it much easier to discuss my views within a context of Eastern philosophy. There are a few folks out there that will find fault with that, no matter what, but it seems that because such philosophy and worldview has been very inclusive throughout modern history, people react less aggressively when I discuss things that way.
If I discuss Christianity itself, I often say “Yeshu of Nazareth” when speaking of Jesus to avoid the emotional baggage many have with doctrine.
There is no doubt I am a disciple of Christ in my mind, and I try most valiantly to state my case in a way that is not offensive nor hostile. I don’t always succeed, but I do my best.
February 18, 2008 at 6:24 pm. Permalink.
Perry Robinson replied:
It may be possible to teach children moral principles (assuming morality is a collection of principles-Plato and Aristotle didn’t think so) without belief in God. It doesn’t follow that one will be able to justify those principles without such belief. Moreover, belief in an agent that grounds moral principles likely strikes children as more intuitive than some secondary reason.
People who think it is wrong to teach their children a worldview shoud refrain from teaching their children how to act in public, how to eat and mathamatics as well. All of those practices are theory laden. Thinking that it is wrong to teach your children is imposing on them the effects of one worldview over against another. Tis strange that silliness often has the semblance of reason.
February 18, 2008 at 9:50 pm. Permalink.
shush replied:
Hetta: thanks! I too have noticed that it seems like some of the kids raised in strict orthodoxy seem to rebel inversely once they reach the teen years.
Jaklumen: I try to avoid overusing Christian language. Some people really do have an extremely negative reaction to it.
Perry: It is true that most children do have an inert belief in strict moral principles, and punishment is a part of that. I’ve known kids that were very confused by the idea of abusive people going unpunished and it deeply disturbed them, without any concept of God. God, himself, almost seems like a natural fit to the absolutes of childish thinking. And you’re right- if we aren’t to influence our children’s thinking unduly, we simply can’t teach them at all. Republicans indoctrinate their children with republican philosophy, democrats with theirs, people who believe in natural medicine indoctrinate their children, people who believe in exercise and dieting indoctrinate theirs… the truth is that children WILL emulate their parents, regardless. Unless we simply want to say that only people who meet a certain profile give birth… well, need I say more?
February 18, 2008 at 10:42 pm. Permalink.
Jersey replied:
This is why I plan to EDUCATE my child on religion, not INDOCTRINATE. One allows the mind to question and explore the answer, the other says to take as-is without question or doubt.
February 18, 2008 at 10:58 pm. Permalink.
apuritanmindset replied:
My wife and I don’t have any kids yet, but I see problems with the two seeming extremes presented in the comments here.
Carey stated:
It’s WRONG to let your kids find their own way when you, as the parent, through years of experience can save them the agony of having to do it the “hard way.” That’s your job as a parent - especially in matters of faith.
I think it’s wrong to NOT let them find their own way. A Christian is not a Christian because his or her parents were Christians, but rather because, somewhere along the way, that individual came to a place where they believed the tenets of Christianity to be true. No amount of indoctrination and force-feeding of the faith can make a child or adult come to faith.
But I also think it is wrong to not be firm in what one believes is true. Yes, we need to raise our children to make decisions for themselves, but to leave things like religion up in their air with our kids is just as dangerous as force-feeding it to them. It tends to indoctrinate them against religion, unintentionally of course.
Then again, since I have no children, I am probably out of place in saying how they should be raised. I just think that, when it comes to matter of religion, one has to be careful that truth is told but freedom is not stolen.
February 18, 2008 at 11:37 pm. Permalink.
Perry Robinson replied:
Shush,
I don’t know why one would think that children have an innate moral compass. If nature teaches us anything, they do not. The examples you give of children disturbed by unpunished unjust individuals is not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an innate moral disposition as it can just as easily be explained by long term conditioning. And even if there were such a thing, it will require an explanation and justification. Just because nature may dispose children to view certain acts as moral does not imply that such acts are in fact are moral since nature doesn’t aim at producing true beliefs.
I’d argue that rather than the categorical nature of moral obligations being like childish thinking that it is rather rooted in natural human desires as agents to see the world as it ought to be rather than it is. But this only works if nature has a teleological component which modern naturalism denies. Consequently taking the route you proffer seems to be the fast track to moral nihilism, since morality is just another naturally induced epistemological mistake. It is a false belief we project on the world, but which has no corresponding referent.
And I am not sure why calling someone a name, sociopath, amounts to a demonstration of the justification of moral principles or claims. It may be true that one cannot demonstrate moral obligation and moral value to a sociopath, but that could easily be because such a person does not accept the initial premises of a moral worldview. Those premises need to be justified and argued for on a non-moral ground. Otherwise you are just begging the question against the sociopath/moral nihilist, and therefore acting, ironically, unreasonably.
February 18, 2008 at 11:56 pm. Permalink.
shush replied:
Perry: I was not speaking of moral absolutes being found in children, just that children have this innate belief in right and wrong and absolutes- perhaps it is a product of long term conditioning, I don’t know. I don’t even believe that what children believe in is necessarily right or even GOOD- as a child tends to believe that anyone who behaves as they like is good and does not is evil- I simply stated that with the absolutes and simplicity of a childish mindset, God is an easier explanation than to delve into ethics. Which, I believe is true. I’ve also heard Atheists use the example of childish morality to say that Christians are just kids who can’t get over Santa. Take that as you will.
I was not calling someone a sociopath to prove morality, either. Even those who do not believe in an objective moral good and evil will realize that ethics serve where morality doesn’t- and causing hurt without reason is ETHICALLY just as wrong as it is morally. I doubt you can make an argument for hurting someone without cause, can you? Is there ever any good reason, unless one takes pleasure in inflicting pain? And unless the person you are hurting takes pleasure in receiving pain, well, that could land you in jail.
apuritanmindset:
You’re right, there is harm in either extreme. One can be firm in their explanation of beliefs without forcing the acceptance of it, certainly. I like the last statement of your comment- speak the truth without stealing freedom.
February 19, 2008 at 12:12 am. Permalink.
Emilia replied:
I like to live by the Golden Rule: Christian kindness minus the threat of eternal torture in a fire pit. I realize that it’s hard to get children to be compassionate, but if you start now, they’ll grow up to be a TRULY compassionate person– someone with an actual basic motivation to be moral, not just “Jesus told me to, and I better do it or I’ll go to Hell.”
Also, if you truly want your children to be able to choose their own religion as they mature, I would be sure you expose them to “other options”…all-compassing Deism, Buddhism, or even *gasp* Agnosticism. What’s the use of not drilling your beliefs if they don’t know anything else anyway? Children idolize their elders as you said, and if you don’t encourage them to be logical and inquisitive in this very important life choice, they’ll quickly “decide” to believe in what the people around them believe anyway.
But hey, what do I know. x)
February 19, 2008 at 1:22 am. Permalink.
hmcahyo replied:
so why not indoctrine them? Is It Wrong? Wrong for you isn’t wrong for me? and vise versa is it?
February 19, 2008 at 1:25 am. Permalink.
shush replied:
Emilia: I went through a long period where I was unsure of what I believed and why, so I studied Taoism and Buddhism and Mormonism and several other faiths. I fully intend on at least teaching my children the basic precepts of faiths outside their own, because ignorance tends to breed intolerance and it’s no way to live. I truly think that the only way anyone can be sure of what they believe is by allowing it to be challenged.
That doesn’t always make me popular with the other Christian moms.
hmcayo:
Why not? Because I want to know that my children believe what they do because THEY have chosen it. I want them to be individuals, not merely an extension of me. That is a choice I have made for personal reasons. Other parents can (and will) do as they wish, and as long as they don’t tread into territory that the law dictates as wrong, well, that’s their choice.
February 19, 2008 at 2:11 am. Permalink.
Perry Robinson replied:
Shush,
I am not clear on the distinction you are drawing between ethics and morality. Usually those are used as univocal terms in philosophy. Substituting one term for another isn’t very enlightening in any case. I can make a logically valid argument for hurting one without cause. Moral Nihilists do it all the time. In any case,
1. Whatever I deem moral is moral.
2. I deem hurting Sally gratuitously is moral.
3. Therefore, hurting Sally gratuitously is moral.
Or more directly, a moral nihilist can simply form an argument based on their view that there are no moral values and therefore it cannot be either moral or immoral to harm someone gratuitously.
Secondly, morality can be useful, but usefulness does not prove truthfulness. Lots of ideas have proven their utilitarian value but have been false. So moral nihilists can agree that ethics mythology can prove useful in a society and aid it in surviving and being productive, but that doesn’t of itself show that survival and productivity have moral value.
February 19, 2008 at 3:22 am. Permalink.
shush replied:
Perry: Morality is indeed subjective to the believer. Ethics, on the other hand, is considered more of an authority where morality falls short, because (for example) medical ethics as a code of conduct stands above the personal morality of a doctor, and doctors are subject to it.
In any case, I don’t feel like getting into an argument about objective morality right now. I feel no deep urge to win you over. Free will is a wonderful thing.
February 19, 2008 at 11:54 am. Permalink.