Practice Non-Religion: Is the Religious Indoctrination of Children a Form of Child Abuse?

After having ranted about this last night, I decided to dig a little and see what people were saying about this.

Richard Dawkins in writtings and in his book, The God Delusion, argues that it is a form of child abuse and his argument is persuasive.  He reasons that because the teaching of religion is steeped in guilt, fear of real and perceived violence perpetrated against the individual (Hell), and threats of violence or harassment against those who question or believe differently, this type of indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse.  To turn it around, wouldn't you have a problem with a parent who used beatings or fear of beatings as a means of disciplining their children?  Couldn't it be child abuse to say "if you disobey your father, the government (representing God in this example) is going to throw you in jail where inmates (demons) will torture you for eternity?"  As a society, would we not be appalled by a government that made this threat?  so why aren't we equally appalled when religions do it?

Lets deal with reality for a moment.  Religions are used to do horrible things.  Almost every single war throughout history has been predicated by religion or supported by religious means.  Even in those wars that people traditionally believe are based on nationalism (World War II) or economic theory (Cold War),  leaders used religion as the mechanism for garnering public support for their efforts.  In World War II, Hitler, a life long Christian, used religious language in his campaign to exterminate the jewish people, telling supporters that the jews killed the savior.  In the Cold War, politicians in the United States used the national atheism of the Soviet Union to connect atheism to communism, and used that to push a religious agenda including the decision in the 1950s to add "under god" to the pledge of allegiance.  Had the national character been based on intelligence and critical thought, it would not have been as easy to get support for such incredibly horrible atrocities as the extermination of the jews and McCarthyism.

These examples, along with the crusades, the recent rape cases, and the use of religion to subjugate minorities, women, and LGBT people, are extreme examples, so why is religion in moderation bad?  Not all religious people are going to end up like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps, right?  Right, but the religious mainstream is what supports religious extremists.  Without a strong foundation of silent religious indoctrination corrupting the minds of millions of Americans, Pat Robertson wouldn't exist.  It is precisely because religious people have been indoctrinated that they think it is acceptable to hate the sin not the sinner, but also tolerate those who hate both.

Finally, religious indoctrination stifles creativity and permanently impairs the mind.  Religion, by its very nature, requires people to be ignorant, because scientific inquiry has proven so much of the bible wrong. Without a literal interpretation of the bible, many of the dogmas relied upon by the church would become invalid or irrational.  So the church continues it's war proper science in a vein attempt to keep the population ignorant.  Education also invites critical thinking, and a critical mind questions everything.  Higher education further reinforces this critical mindset which encourages creativity, exploration, expertise, and experimentation.  All of these things are recognized characteristics of effective leadership. How can a person who shuns education gain these skills?  religion teaches dogmatic reliance on priests for answers to big questions.  That doesn't seem to help foster creativity, etc.  By the time youths are old enough to truly begin to question, they have already been indoctrinated with a virus that will sap their potential for success in life.

So is religion a from child abuse?
If you raise your children through dogmatic religious indoctrination you are instilling fear of real and perceived violence, ignorance of both original and developing knowledge, reliance on outdated forms of morality without the critical intellect to compensate in today's society, and denying your child access to necessary skills and knowledge for their survival in the world (i.e. lack of knowledge about birth control).  So my answer would be YES!

Some articles attempt to refute Dawkins, but do so in illogical and, frankly, stupid ways.  Rich Deem from the website "Evidence for God" argues that because religiously inclined people show lower levels of behaviors society has deemed inappropriate, their religion could not have been abusive.  He makes this arguement by relying on previous research that individuals who were abused in childhood show a greater likelihood for destructive, societally rejected behavior.  It's pretty plain that this individual is not very smart (as one might expect from a religious extremist).  He has made a pretty substantial logical mistep.  His argument depends on the assumption that since child abuse is associated with negative behaviors, a person who does not exhibit those behaviors was not abused.  Any person worth his salt can figure out why this is wrong.  Primarily, the problem is that the connection is not ALL.  If ALL abused people exhibited certain behaviors, then he would be correct, a lack of the exhibited behavior would indicate a lack of abuse.  That is not the case.  Second, the author uses a limited number of behaviors to refute Dawkins.  What if Religion suppresses some behaviors, but exacerbates others?  For instance, religious people might be less likely to steal, but they may also more likely to lie about it, since stealing is taboo and they wouldn't want others to know about it.  The results of their abuse might also appear in other behaviors, such as violence against women, self, LGBT people, etc.

Religion may be a suppressant, but it suppresses more than just the "bad behaviors," it suppresses creativity and knowledge of what is good, fair, and morally right by replacing it with a morality of ignorance and dogma.  Is it abuse, YES!

Common Sense