Although I wish there were some way to prevent parents from indoctrinating their children with religion, that’s not in the cards. In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins famously considered such proselytizing “child abuse”, and while I don’t agree that holds in every case, it certainly comes close in many cases. Think of the Catholic children scarred for life with thoughts of Hell, Jewish children turned into Orthodox believers, with all the foolishness that accompanies such beliefs, Muslim children inculcated with hatred of Jews, gays, and apostates. None of these children would turn out that way in a secular world.
But there is some saving grace here, for although parents are freely allowed (and often encouraged) to religiously brainwash their kids, other people aren’t, even if they’re relatives.
Several readers sent me this link to a CBC article about a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) in British Columbia who are proselytizing their 4-year-old granddaughter against the wishes of her mother, who has sole custody of the child. The father, separated from the mother, nevertheless told his parents of the child’s birth, and the grandparents set in to convert her, taking her to a “Kingdom Hall” (a J.W. church) and showing her religious videos. As the CBC notes, this violated the mother’s wishes for the child’s upbringing:
The grandparents want A.W. [the child] to experience their religion, while M.W. [the biological mother] insists her daughter “can decide when she is older whether or not to participate in any religious practices.”
That’s sensible, but the grandparents just couldn’t stop, and asked the court for unsupervised access to the child (i.e., continued religious indoctrination with nobody watching).
The provincial court judge, Edna Ritchie, turned down the claim, allowing only supervised visitation in a 12-page decision. I’ve given an excerpt below; again, the child is “A.W.”, her mother is “M.W.”, and the petitioning grandparents are “A.R. and B.R.”:
[23] The Family Law Act (FLA), s. 40 states that only a guardian may have parental responsibilities. Under s. 41 of the FLA, parental responsibilities are listed and include making decisions respecting the child’s religious and spiritual upbringing.
[24] The applicants argued that their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) are being violated because the Charter guarantees their rights to practice their religion. The applicants argue that the Charter gives them the right to express views on any topic, including religion, to A.W. when she is with them.
. . . [39] Balancing all of the factors set out, and having considered all of the evidence presented, I am concerned that the applicants’ demonstrated inability to respect and comply with M.W.’s decisions on religion will continue to cause conflict. It is not in A.W.’s best interests to be exposed to that conflict.
[40] There are many people with strongly held religious views that do not discuss those views in front of others, and specifically not in front of other people’s children. As noted above, the applicants do not appear to be capable of not exposing A.W. to their religious beliefs. Unless and until the applicants satisfy M.W. or the court that they can respect and comply with M.W.’s parental decisions on religion, their time with A.W. must be supervised and limited.
[41] M.W. has two small children and works full time. She is willing to continue to supervise one visit per month between the applicants and A.W. at her home.
[42] I find that it is in A.W.’s best interest to maintain the status quo of one supervised contact visit with the applicants on the first Monday of every month for one hour. That contact time will take place at M.W.’s home and be supervised by her unless the parties agree otherwise. In addition, the parties can agree to additional contact time between them but I am not making an order that either party has to agree to additional contact.
This would seem to be a no-brainer, as the child’s mother must have the say in how she’s brought up, but imagine it the other way around. What if the mother was a Jehovah’s Witness, exposing her four-year-old daughter to the odious tenets of that faith, and the grandparents talked about nonbelief and the craziness of JW faith during their visits. That would also be illegal. What a strange world this is!
As people if parents should have the right to raise their children to believe that God exists and he needs to be prayed to and they will say “well yes of course that has to be a parent’s right.” But ask those same people if parents should have the right to raise their children to believe that white people are superior to black people and they should hopefully hesitate.
Sorry, first word above should be “ask.”
Sorry, but yes, you have the right to be a racist and raise a racist. As with most cases of freedom of thought and expression, the alternative is simply worse.
Freedom of thought is paramount. But teaching children isn’t thought. It’s action. You are forgetting about the child’s right to freedom of thought which is more necessary to protect than the rights of adult because they are more vulnerable. Humans have the longest childhood of any animal. Because of this we evolved virtually inescapable credulity with respect to our parents for a very long time. Children are not your possession. You are free to think what you want to think, but teaching children is not thinking, it is acting. and when your free thought turn into actions society has a say.
I realize how controversial this is. I’m not set on this idea but I’m not as convinced as most people are by this axiom that parents have a right to teach their children anything they want. The children;s right to freedom of thought needs to come first, lest we continue to be a world dominated by religious cults.
Children have far fewer rights than you think. Society protects them, and does not grant them anywhere near the decision-making powers that parents have. And no, a child’s right to freedom of thought does not come first. Nowhere on this planet, and for good reason.
And what you are saying is so unconstitutional, one hardly knows where to begin. Teaching is action? So was the Boston Tea Party, and that would surely have be protected under the First Amendment. When one is teaching, one is absolutely communicating, and the First Amendment kicks in already in 5th gear.
Who cares what’s ‘constitutional’? The ‘right to carry lethal weapons around’ is allegedly ‘constitutional’.
This is a Canadian case. Constitution doesn’t apply, any more than fatwas do. In any case, the Constipation has very little bearing on what is right and worng. Argue the case on its merits.
I think Matt has some good points. I think Richard Dawkins would probably agree with him.
cr
I understand I was looking through an American constitutional lens.
But no, I think it’s a crap idea, frankly. There’s a reason children (and not just in the U.S.) don’t have many “rights.” Because they’re children. They want ice cream for breakfast and expensive toys – that doesn’t mean we give them to them. They’re children.
And I’m quite suspicious of attempts to step in and relieve the parents of child rearing rights to ensure that someone else’s preferred agenda can be implemented instead.
Or as Frank Zappa said, “Who are the brain police?”
Okay, I was being a bit touchy about that ‘constitution’ viewpoint. Us off-worlders are, sometimes.
Leaving that aside, there’s things to be said on both sides. We (and by that I mean probably most on this site) do NOT like the idea of kids being indoctrinated into their parents’ religion. Ideally, parents should bring them up to be thoughtful, considerate, and open to reason and logical argument, and not full of voodoo and superstition.
But how to enforce that if the parents don’t, that’s the tricky thing.
Kids *do* have rights though. Just not the same rights as an adult. They have some right not to have their brains screwed with. I think, if they are being taught that they’ll go to hell if they have a blood transfusion, that’s getting near the limit. If they were being taught that it’s okay to kill the kids next door because they’re the wrong colour, or that it’s perfectly okay to steal if they can get away with it, most jurisdictions would promptly put them ‘in care’.
cr
Children don’t have far fewer rights than I think. They have far fewer right than they should have. I am aware of the unconscionable deficit in their current rights situation.
The US constitution is not a holy document that tells us what is right and what is wrong. Times change. Religious indoctrination of minors is child abuse. This is a relatively new revelation that some folks still haven’t caught onto yet, but the evidence is clear. We live in a primitive world dominated by ancient superstitious cults, and this axiom that “children’s minds are the sole possession of their parents” is the cause. Children belong to the world, they are future citizens and neighbors, and they have the right not to be brainwashed when they are at their most vulnerable.
We’re probably not going to agree here. But waiving around the US constitution has no sway with me. Only good relevant arguments based on reason and evidence do.
Note the similarity between how conservatives often use the bible and the constitution. They are both used as rule books to support the status quo. It’s not that they actually read and understand either book. It’s just something they can point to when making their reactionary cry for stability in a changing world.
Matt wrote:
” Religious indoctrination of minors is child abuse. …this axiom that “children’s minds are the sole possession of their parents” is the cause.”
I completely agree. I can only look at it from a US perspective, where the problem is acute. Enforcement of a solution is difficult, of course, but not insurmountable, and I don’t agree with those who say the solution is worse than the problem. We could start by eliminating the farce that is homeschooling, a tiny step, but valuable. Children could be taught, at a very early age, not that their parents are wrong, but that other people have different ideas, including nonbelief, and that the religion they’re being raised in is a product of geography. That religious exemptions should be excised from child abuse statutes is a given, though impossible in the current climate. There are other possible steps, though no one solution, and it’s a problem that will take generations to fix. That’s no reason not to start, though.
Hear hear.
Hear hear.
How nice. We’ll fight parental indoctrination with what? Your version of indoctrination? Should we give them uniforms, send them out to enforce your version of enlightenment?
You seem to want to replace one form of authoritarianism with another, which is hardly an improvement. You scare me.
Did you just ask me a question, then answered it yourself, and then criticized the answer you gave? Have a look. That’s exactly what you did. Where did I say anything about authoritarianism? I think you;re scaring yourself with all of these strawmen you are inventing.
You don’t see anything authoritarian in taking from parents the right to teach their children (who are their children, not yours) and substituting what? How exactly would you ensure children are raised according to YOUR standards, and not those of the parents?
How, exactly, would you accomplish that? Law? Force?
No, nothing authoritarian there. Move along, nothing to see here.
@ Jeff Ryan
How about teaching them, at an early age in school, that other cultures have other ideas about religion, different than the ones that our culture promotes, that the religion children are raised into is a result of geography, and that others consider their religion just as true as the one they being raised with. Would you consider that too authoritarian? It does have the advantage of being true. How about banning homeschooling, so that children cannot be shielded from views that differ from the parents’ preference. Other countries have done this without the culture falling apart. There are a number of things that can be done short of telling parents what they must and must not teach their children.
How about we just remove them from the parents at birth? Eliminate them from the equation. Teach them the RIGHT way. Or, at least, your way.
But in the end, you will only teach them the STATE way. What could possibly go wrong?
Why do you make such silly statements? No one is talking about removing children, I’m talking about teaching them about the world in school. Parents could still teach them whatever they want at home. Do you also object to teaching them other things parents don’t like, science perhaps, in school?
No, I don’t object to teaching them science. I don’t necessarily object to teaching them things that their parents disagree with or disbelieve.
I do object to teaching them their parents are wrong, which seems to be where this would inevitably lead.
Nobody is saying their parents are wrong, any more than teaching evolution to children is saying their parents are wrong, just because the parents don’t accept evolution. Yet you say you are alright with that. How is this any different? Parents can tell them whatever they want, eventually the children will decide for themselves what they accept.
Jeff you continue to argue with your words not mine. If you can ever muster up a comment that does not put your words into my mouth I will engage, but you don’t seem capable of that so we should probably drop it.
I am responding to the implications of your position. In fact, I don’t see how those implications can be viewed as anything but predictable consequences. And I think you are ducking admitting that. But, no, I am not trying to literally put words in your mouth. I am in fact responding directly to what you have said.
Otherwise, yes, maybe we should drop it. And feel free to respond to this, without fear that I will reply in kind. I don’t require having the “last word.”
“I don’t necessarily object to teaching them things that their parents disagree with or disbelieve.
I do object to teaching them their parents are wrong, which seems to be where this would inevitably lead.”
I fail to see the difference between ‘things their parents disagree with’ and ‘parents are wrong’, frankly.
cr
“How about we just remove them from the parents at birth? Eliminate them from the equation. Teach them the RIGHT way. Or, at least, your way.”
Nothing I said implies any of this. This is 100% pure strawmanning and demagogic stramanning at that, especially when you add in a “you scare me”. You are clearly scaring yourself, Jeff. No one here is implying anything you are supposedly in fear of.
I don’t see how there could ever be an acceptable way to prevent parents bringing up children with religious views (or any other views that we might find objectionable). What’s the alternative? A government approved ideology? Compulsory atheism? That’s a far more terrifying prospect.
Yes, but this situation is more about the grandparents. In the US, the Court has been very clear that a fit parent has control over the upbringing of their child. A fit parent can refuse visitation (or set boundaries upon such) by grandparents. Grandparents have to be pretty careful, because they have very few, if any, rights when it comes to their grandchildren.
That’s probably as it should be. Obviously there will be exceptions, but the potential for conflict between parents and meddling grandparents (or between two different sets of grandparents) is far too high to encourage it by giving them legal rights which many will see as obligations.
Having done more than my share of family law, I can tell you it can lead to nightmares. Some states have fallen for the “grandparents rights” line. The consequences, if taken too far, are horrendous.
I have seen grandparents (unsuccessfully, thankfully) try to terminate their children’s rights to be parents in order to take over the child lock, stock and barrel.
And to anyone at all familiar with how this works just about everywhere, the last “parent” you want to give a child is the state. The child would be better off raised by wolves.
There is a way. The school curriculum could be required (even for homeschoolers) to present study of comparative religion as a cultural item.
That was one of Dan Dennett’s good ideas. It would be effective, I think, in helping to protect kids from being brainwashed.
I’m sure there would be some parents who would insist on the right to have their own children opt out, but the overall effect should be beneficial.
Of course, in “The God Delusion” Dawkins has that chilling story of a maid who surreptitiously baptized a Jewish child which the resulted in the courts removing the child from the parents custody since the baptism conferred an indelible supernatural grace of some sort which then had to be properly cultivated.
The Morales case. This happened in the Papal States in the 1800s so the courts were in fact directly under the control of the Pope. So much for the sanctity of the family
You might think that’s crazy, but it’s also the way things have pretty much been done for a long time. So it’s hardly crazy, if one defines “crazy” as “abnormal.” (I’m not arguing that just because something is a custom that it therefore makes sense. But parenting someone else’s child is not my job, and schooling the child in atheism is certainly taking on a role that’s not mine to take on.)
I never discuss my atheism with the children of my friends who are religious unless they are of age. It’s not my role to intrude on their parenting, irrespective of how I view their faith.
The words “my job” or “my role” are ambiguous in this context. The only people who can say what my job or role is are those who have some sort of power over me, such as an employer.
The main objection to parenting someone else’s child is the sheer impracticability of it. You have no authority over the child and if you anger the parents, the child will likely be removed from your influence.
That’s an exceedingly narrow view. I am self-employed, but I hardly think I don’t have a “job.”
And if you’re going to take on the role of someone’s parent with regard to religious teaching, then be prepared to take on all the other parenting responsibilities if asked to. Otherwise, butt out.
“prepared to take on all the other parenting responsibilities if asked to.”
Says who? You have no ability to define what bundle of responsibilities go together. My job is whatever I want it to be, which is an exceedingly broad view, rather than a narrow one. 😉
We often talk about the rights parents have in respect of their children. Personally, I think we don’t talk enough about the rights of the child.
We assume that all parents love their children and want the best for them, but that isn’t always the case. Further, even with the best parents, children have little or no control over their upbringing, and it is critical to their lifelong happiness and whether they get the opportunity to reach their potential.
I’d like to see the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child be better advertised as a start. I think it gives a good starting point for society to think about.
Ah, but what is the importance of lifelong happiness compared to the fate of the immortal soul?
Given their assumptions, many of the horrible practices of the religious make sense.
And that’s the problem right there. They’re not even going to get a choice because their parents are so convinced they’re right.
Hear, hear!
Heather Hastie wrote:
“I’d like to see the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child be better advertised as a start. I think it gives a good starting point for society to think about.”
Exactly right. Which is probably why religious organizations in the US have fought so hard to keep America from ratifying it, joining Somalia and South Sudan as the only countries in the world not to accept it. Jesse Helms fought it for years, calling it an effort to “chip away at the U.S. Constitution.” The religious see it as a challenge to their authority (ownership) over their children.
Yeah, and South Sudan just hasn’t got around to it because it’s such a new country. Huckabee’s another one who attacks the UN at every turn. Ratifying it actually has no effect on the internal laws of a country, but you wouldn’t know that listening to people like them.
So true. All ratifying it would mean is that the US would have to submit a written report on the condition of children with regard to the ideals set out in the treaty. Of course, that means we would have to admit we’re the only country whose justice system can lock up children under 18 for life, that we allow parents to withhold lifesaving medical treatments from children for religious reasons, that we allow corporal punishment for children, that about 20% of our children live in poverty (which means they’re hungry, of course), and various other metrics that show that many American children are in trouble. Of course, all Huckabee and the religious mafia can see is that the UN wants to tell them how they must raise families.
Hear hear indeed. We have freedom of thought, not freedom of action and teaching children is not thought, it’s action. Your children are not your possession and their freedom of thought has to be paramount lest we continue to be a world dominated by religious cults.
Hear hear indeed. We have freedom of thought, and teaching children is not thought, it’s action. Children are not your possession, and their freedom of thought needs to be protected first, lest we continue to be a world dominated by religious cults.
Should tell the grandparents to go back to knocking on doors and leave the kid alone. Always wonder, if the religion is so wonderful why do you have to sell it so hard?
The question John Loftus asks in his book – if creationism is supported by the facts why do they need to start organizations like the Discovery Institute and many others?
” if creationism is supported by the facts why do they need to start organizations like the Discovery Institute and many others?”
Because the facts are being suppressed by atheist scientists.
Yes, the conspiracy theory. The one theory the creationist believe in.
My thought on all this was that most people pass through a phase of being an opinionated knobhead who knows absolutely everything in their teens. Most of us grow out of this when we realise that there is more stuff to know than any one person can possibly know and, as a result of this realisation, we become more broad minded and respectful of other people’s views. I’m in my late fifties now and this has been an on going process for my entire life. These people are old enough to be grandparents and yet have learned little about life since they were teenagers and, as a result, have poisoned their relationship with their children and their grandchildren. How very sad.
“There are many people with strongly held religious views that do not discuss those views in front of others, and specifically not in front of other people’s children.”
I interacted some with this Catholic family whose daughter was a classmate of my daughter. We went out to a fast food lunch at one point, with the adults sitting at one table and the children (three of them hers) sitting at another, and she took it upon herself to pray loudly for the children’s table.
This offended me; she never bothered to ask my permission (probably didn’t care). But when I mentioned it to others, they discounted my concerns and lambasted me for being “too sensive” and “overreacting” and “intolerant” and whatnot. Some of these, TBQH, were Christians, but still. Would THEY want somebody of another religion imposing it on THEIR children? Expressions of their own religion predictably get a pass.
So this part of the ruling is very gratifying to me. It’s like that saying about religion being like a penis: It’s great if you have one; it’s fine if you’re proud of it; but please don’t take it out and wave it around in public, and don’t try to shove it down my throat or especially my children’s throats.
You’ve really got it in for the florist’s trade haven’t you? Which trade is almost all about people buying the sex organs of plants, and mostly shoving them into other people’s faces and expecting ejaculations of pleasure.
Calm down, gravelinspector. Go inspect some strata. 😉
Yeah, that thing about plants has occurred to me too. Also to Gerald Scarfe: (Warning – *very* NSFW )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_FCbQ-okM
But I have to say, Doris’s analogy in her last para is not accurate. My dangly bits have given me much satisfaction over the years, almost always in private, and have rarely caused a nuisance to anyone else. Therefore, in that respect quite UNlike religion.
cr
Oh, that animation. I’d forgotten it was Scarfe who did “The Wall”. Perfectly safe for work – nothing on youtube gets through on the work’s work network, and it’s usually unwatchable on the work’s social/ domestic/ pleasure networks.
One hour PER MONTH! That’s *harsh!* But since the grandparents have made it clear this is what they intend to do – indoctrinate this woman’s child – so be it.
The woman is being perfectly reasonable – why shouldn’t a child be respected and not taken advantage of while small, and left to choose for herself/himself later on in life, when her ability to think and reason is better developed? If JW religion is true, won’t the tot naturally gravitate to it when s/he’s grown?
*sorry, laughed too hard*
If a religion depends on indoctrinating impressionable children, people should really think hard about what that says about their religion. If you can only get away with forcing it upon those who are powerless to resist (in all senses), then you have an abusive belief system. And JW definitely qualifies.
Of course religion depends on indoctrinating impressionable children. All religion does. Why do you think people are religious in the first place? Their parents taught it to them. Just like their parents taught it to them. And so on, and so on.
That’s how religions survive. Haven’t you ever had someone attack you, when you question their faith, by saying, “Are you saying my parents lied to me?”
Do they really need to be praying at a fast food place? Are they praying not to get a heart attack on the big mac and fries.
“why shouldn’t a child be … left to choose for herself/himself later on in life, when her ability to think and reason is better developed”
Because only someone that’s anti-religion would say such a thing.
When it’s something we agree with and value, we’re all for training children in childhood. Who would save potty training for the teenage years? 😉
“Think of the Catholic children scarred for life with thoughts of Hell”
I was one of those Catholic children, and I agree that it’s child abuse. I wasn’t scarred for life, but for more than a decade after becoming an atheist I had lots of religiously inspired guilt, particularly where sex was concerned. I considered it to be like a phobia. Intellectually I recognized it was irrational, but I still felt it emotionally.
Likewise, except Anglican. After an entire childhood filled with religious input, God is such a part of your mental family that it’s very hard to think of him as not there; rather as it would be, I guess, to be raised with constant stories about a fictitious uncle’s escapades and then, on becoming an adult, to find out he never existed.
You make me feel embarrassed to think I was raised in a near absents of religion. How easy it has been in that regard. But, still the effects of society as a whole had repressive effects that linger. It’s hard to be a fully free individual when we depend for so many years on our culture. Either you succumb to the crowd or you are forever in rebellion.
I think similar situations in Britain would result in the grandparents losing what voluntary access they have to the child (odd – one child is mentioned, but two are mentioned elsewhere) and the courts refusing to compel access.
While contact between grandparents and grandchildren is generally considered desirable, it is not a matter of right, and I’m pretty sure that the courts have refused to grant cases attempting to make it a right.
IANAL.
The mother has two children but by different fathers; only one of the children is the grandchild of the grandparents in question. The grandparents had provided a significant amount of childcare (sometimes for both children) while the child was very young since the mother has a full time job (this and that the mother was agreeable is probably why they got even the minimum supervised interaction with their grandchild).
The full opinion is interesting since the emphasis is on the best interests of the child not the rights of the parents.
Which is, I think, the absolute prime concern of the family law system in the UK. Parent rights only kick in after the “best interests” of the child have been considered and addressed.
But IANAL. And this is an area of law of no importance to me, so it only gets attention when I’m reading the newspaper.
I can see the grandparents misunderstand freedom of religion – it doesn’t mean you get to indoctrinate everyone or that everyone has to listen to you. It means, the state can’t force you not to practice your religion.
Christian proselytizing drives me crazy and JWs are one of the most tenacious proselytizers.
Indeed, when Dawkins refers to religious indoctrination as “child abuse” no where is he more correct than in the case of JWs.
Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
woot woot! one of the readers who shared. LOL.
There was an interesting case in British Columbia around 2007 when a JW couple had a multi-birth batch of babies. Fertility drugs were involved. so much for prayer and god’s will, eh?
anyway, their babies were all underweight and the Ministry of Children and Family services stepped in and temporarily took care of the medical treatement and one if not 2 of the got a transfusion.
they were all returned to the parents once healthy
but there is no way that those parents were able to raise the children the same, when they think the transfused babies are tainted and not capable to attain heaven.
religion is a mental health issue and it causes studity.
My grandparents from my mother’s side were Jehova’s witnesses. It made my mother’s childhood difficult. My father was raised in a classic Catholic family with 11 children, but he never bought into the whole religion thing, so thankfully my brother and I were raised without any religion. The only moments we would get into contact with religion was during visits to grandparents, though usually no more than having to be silent while grandparents (and some uncles and aunts) prayed before dinner. My mother had asked her mother not to proselitize to us grandchildren so luckily she never did, though she slipped me a copy of the Watchtower once or twice 😉