Brave Humans

When you hear the term “child abuse”, you probably imagine the worst. Beatings, incest, and the darkest side of humanity. What probably doesn’t come to mind is brainwashing. In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins argues that parents who indoctrinate children in their religion are child abusers. Religion, he argues, fills little minds with nonsense fantasies, and stifles their inherent curiosity:

Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods. It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn’t it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents’ religion?

Consider then two examples of molded young minds. Both of these children are bright 8-year olds. The first is an ordained minister, while the second is an avowed atheist.

Under Dawkins’ argument, the first child is clearly abused. Meanwhile, such strong words from a young atheist riled TV pundit Bill O’Reilly, who asked “child advocate” Wendy Murphy if this young girl was abused:

O’Reilly: Is this child abuse?

Murphy: You bet it is. There is no question that using a child as a tool to promote propaganda, political propaganda, about which the child understands nothing. I guarantee you a child of that age has no idea what she is saying. That is the ultimate inhumane treatment of a child.

Child abuse. Inhumane treatment. These are strong words. Of course neither Dawkins or Murphy really means it. If they did they would have a moral obligation to act to protect these children.

If Dawkins truly believes that children subjected to religious dogma are victims of abuse, then he should lobby his government to ban religious people from adopting children. He should argue for the removal of children from religious households. If promoting “demonstrable falsehoods” to children is abusive, then every parent who speaks of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy should be reported to child services.

If Murphy considers the use of children in politics as “the ultimate inhumane treatment of a child”, then she should call for the arrest of every politician who holds a news conference surrounded by children. She should call for a ban on the use of children in political ads. Wendy Murphy shouldn’t rest until both these children are removed from their parents and placed in foster care if she truly feels such acts are as bad or worse than incest and physical abuse.

But that won’t happen, because they don’t really mean it. What Dawkins and Murphy hope to gain by crying “abuse” is a claim of moral superiority. It sells books, and ads on TV, and is much easier than having a real discussion on the balance between the rights of parents and the rights of children.

So here is my question. Is there a point where what you teach your child (or don’t teach your child) actually IS a form of abuse?