Religion is Child Abuse

[BubberMiley]

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting chapter in God Is Not Great about how all religion, no matter what form, is child abuse. This is not just because of the fact that, with the decline in organized religion's ability to curb all scrutiny, religious leaders' traditional practice of physically and sexually abusing children has come to light. It is also because instilling in children the belief that there will be eternal damnation for failing to meet an impossible standard (e.g.., thou shalt not covet) is equally abusive.

Do religious parents really feel good about tormenting their children with superstition?

Edited February 9, 2008 by BubberMiley

[buffycat]

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting chapter in God Is Not Great about how all religion, no matter what form, is child abuse. This is not just because of the fact that, with the decline in organized religion's ability to curb all scrutiny, religious leaders' traditional practice of physically and sexually abusing children has come to light. It is also because instilling in children the belief that there will be eternal damnation for failing to meet an impossible standard (e.g.., thou shalt not covet) is equally abusive.

Do religious parents really feel good about tormenting their children with superstition?

While not a fan of Hitchens I will have to agree with him here.

Though, I would add that religion is also adult and teen abuse as well. Heck, it plain abusive and divisive - and has little or nothing to do with true spirituality and the reality that we are all brothers and sisters in one family: Humanity.

Organised religion is the bogeyman your parents used to get you to behave in certain ways (note not all parents choose this method of child rearing: read FEAR). It is paternalistic and reduces the individual. It is NOT, as I said above spiritual - it is a power based control mechanism, used by a few over the many.

[Guest American Woman]

...I would add that religion is also adult and teen abuse as well. Heck, it plain abusive and divisive - and has little or nothing to do with true spirituality and the reality that we are all brothers and sisters in one family: Humanity.

Wow. You evidently know as much about religion as Hitchens does; or more accurately, as little about it.

This piece from the Washington Post says exactly what I set out to say, only much better, so I'll simply provide the link along with the excerpts that express my point of view:

Historian George Marsden once described fundamentalism as evangelicalism that is mad about something. If so, these evangelistic atheists have something in common with their fundamentalist foes, and Hitchens is the maddest of the lot.

Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naïf.

...the only people who believe that religion is about believing blindly in a God who blesses and curses on demand and sees science and reason as spawns of Satan are unlettered fundamentalists and their atheistic doppelgangers.

I've often said that Hitchens et al-type athiests are just the opposite side of the coin of the fundamentalist/extremist religious.

Edited February 9, 2008 by American Woman

[Rue]

Wow. You evidently know as much about religion as Hitchens does; or more accurately, as little about it.

This piece from the Washington Post says exactly what I set out to say, only much better, so I'll simply provide the link along with the excerpts that express my point of view:

Historian George Marsden once described fundamentalism as evangelicalism that is mad about something. If so, these evangelistic atheists have something in common with their fundamentalist foes, and Hitchens is the maddest of the lot.

Hitchens claims that some of his best friends are believers. If so, he doesn't know much about his best friends. He writes about religious people the way northern racists used to talk about "Negroes" -- with feigned knowing and a sneer. God Is Not Great assumes a childish definition of religion and then criticizes religious people for believing such foolery. But it is Hitchens who is the naïf.

...the only people who believe that religion is about believing blindly in a God who blesses and curses on demand and sees science and reason as spawns of Satan are unlettered fundamentalists and their atheistic doppelgangers.

I've often said that Hitchens et al-type athiests are just the opposite side of the coin of the fundamentalist/extremist religious.

Simplistic postulators tend to attract simplistic groupies. Still doesn't explain why anyone would sleep with Keitch Richards though.

[Leafless]

Do religious parents really feel good about tormenting their children with superstition?

And Bubbers continues his attack on any type of authority that could could affect his free wheeling life style except of course, the socialistic kind that promotes minority concerns over majority concerns.

[BubberMiley]

Wow. You evidently know as much about religion as Hitchens does; or more accurately, as little about it.

I wouldn't say Hitchens has a simplistic concept of religion at all; he just recognizes the simplicity of its motivation: that is, to use fear to gain power over other individuals. The bible spends most of its time boasting about its authority in an extremely self-defensive manner. No one seems to recognize how ridiculous it would be for an omnipotent, all-powerful god to spend so much time worrying that the people it has created might worship some other non-existent all-powerful god. It makes a lot more sense that mere mortals instead were the ones with such worries, and therefore obvious that religion and the bible are just human creations that have been used for centuries to maintain a power structure.

Edited February 9, 2008 by BubberMiley

[BubberMiley]

And Bubbers continues his attack on any type of authority that could could affect his free wheeling life style except of course, the socialistic kind that promotes minority concerns over majority concerns.

Please refrain from personal attacks and threats of violence. They bring down the quality of the forum.

[Guest American Woman]

I wouldn't say Hitchens has a simplistic concept of religion at all; he just recognizes the simplicity of its motivation: that is, to use fear to gain power over other individuals. The bible spends most of its time boasting about its authority in an extremely self-defensive manner. No one seems to recognize how ridiculous it would be for an omnipotent, all-powerful god to spend so much time worrying that the people it has created might worship some other non-existent all-powerful god. It makes a lot more sense that mere mortals instead were the ones with such worries, and therefore obvious that religion and the bible are just human creations that have been used for centuries to maintain a power structure.

Yes, it's very simplistic-- as is your explanation. I repeat in regards to what you say here (No one seems to recognize how ridiculous it would be for an omnipotent, all-powerful god to spend so much time worrying that the people it has created might worship some other non-existent all-powerful god.): "...the only people who believe that religion is about believing blindly in a God who blesses and curses on demand and sees science and reason as spawns of Satan are unlettered fundamentalists and their atheistic doppelgangers."

In other words, only the "fundamentally religious" and the "evangical atheists" believe what you and he claim religious people believe.

[BubberMiley]

In other words, only the "fundamentally religious" and the "evangical atheists" believe what you and he claim religious people believe.

I'm talking about what the bible says. You may say only the fundies believe what the bible says, but I think most christian religions declare it is the truth.

One might say the most explicit and repeated aspect of the bible is the 10 commandments. I don't think belief in those principles is limited to just fundies. But rather than dealing with pertinent moral issues like, say, slavery or torture or war, half the commandments are used up making sure nobody dares question the authority of this omnipotent creator:

I am the Lord your God

You shall have no other gods before me

You shall not make for yourself an idol

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

I simply have a hard time believing that a force that could create the universe would be so insecure. But a mortal person who is devising a religious system to exert control over others and who is wanting to ensure its potential subects are intimidated enough to not follow some other mortal's similar plan? He might be so insecure.

Which brings me to my point: religion has always drawn its influence by spreading fear of being tortured in hell for eternity. They may be less explicit about it in some churches now, but ultimately that's still what keeps bums in the seats. It's bad enough to inflict such torment on consenting adults, but to force children to endure such indoctrination is quite simply wrong.

Edited February 10, 2008 by BubberMiley

[Guest American Woman]

...Which brings me to my point: religion has always drawn its influence by spreading fear of being tortured in hell for eternity. They may be less explicit about it in some churches now, but ultimately that's still what keeps bums in the seats. It's bad enough to inflict such torment on consenting adults, but to force children to endure such indoctrination is quite simply wrong.

It's not the fear of Hell that keeps "the bums in their seats." It's the thought of a loving God and the belief/ hope of a better world in the Beyond that keeps everyone I know "in their seats," and none of them are "bums," btw.

It's such a lesson in futility to try to discuss religion with someone who doesn't believe yet feels qualified to say what those who do believe, believe. It's like the author of the article I cited said: people declare what we believe and then declare us nuts for believing it. Never mind that we don't actually believe it.

I don't care that you don't believe. That's your choice. I question a lot of things myself, but I don't claim to know the answers and I don't put people who find peace in their beliefs down. Anyone who claims to know the answers, whether they are religious or athiests, and put people down for not sharing their beliefs, are cut from the same cloth.

Edited February 10, 2008 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Do people actually believe in God? I mean... seriously. I know there are a lot of people who are religious because they like the teachings, traditions and ceremonies, but I've always felt that a lot of religious people don't actually believe in a God.

It seems rather foolish and pompous with the myriad of options to claim you know there is a God, you're certain of which one it is and you know what he wants (if anything) from us. I mean, even the people who believe in the Judeo Christian God are atheists with respect to all the other options. If they can live happy healthy lives without believing in the Mayan gods (the sun God was fun, wasn't he?), I can live happily denying the existence of the holy spirit and the judeo christian god. (And so can everyone else who belongs to different religions)

Anyway, to teach impressionable children at an age where they're too young to understand any better that there is some dude in the sky that's going to torture them for all eternity if they don't believe in him, if they don't like members of the opposite sex, if they don't unconditionally love a parent that abuses them seems pretty abusive to me.

Edited February 10, 2008 by cybercoma

[BubberMiley]

It's not the fear of Hell that keeps "the bums in their seats." It's the thought of a loving God and the belief/ hope of a better world in the Beyond that keeps everyone I know "in their seats," and none of them are "bums," btw.

True, religion has used tactics other than fear to attract subjects, such as the promise of eternal reward for adequate subservience. It has even tried to attract those who feel unloved by telling them this omnipotent entity "loves" them, despite overwhelming evidence that if such an entity exists it is completely indifferent to whether we live happily or die slow, miserable, painful deaths. It appears religion will use any method that works to gain power over others: fear, intimidation, fraud, and in some cases outright force.

[Guest American Woman]

Reading over the last couple of responses, I have to ask-- Is that what religion does? Is that was it teaches? And not being religious yourselves, you know this how?

Like I said, it's a lesson in futility to try to discuss religion with non-believers who claim to know what believers say and/or do.

As I already said, believe what you want. But don't tell people who believe in God, don't tell believers what they believe, and then accuse them of abuse based on your notions of what religion is and does.

Once again, Hitchens et al are just the opposite side of the coin of the religious fundamentalist/extremists, and just like they'll never see it, apparently neither will the Hitchens of the world.

[myata]

True. The problem with the point of view presented in the OP is that it is every single bit as absolutist as the one it wants to criticise. And because there's no supreme authority to tell us unquestionably and once and for all, who's right and who's not, the blame and accusations can go on forever. I'm not sure how much else could come out of it.

[BubberMiley]

Like I said, it's a lesson in futility to try to discuss religion with non-believers who claim to know what believers say and/or do.

As I already said, believe what you want. But don't tell people who believe in God, don't tell believers what they believe, and then accuse them of abuse based on your notions of what religion is and does.

Perhaps it's just as futile to discuss religion in an objective manner with believers, as they've already willingly let go of objective reasoning in favour of what they call "faith." In that context, any amount of emperical evidence is irrelevant.

But it's easy for a non-believer to determine what believers believe. One just has to go the source of their belief system--the bible. I'm not telling you what you believe. It is.

Religion has long relied on a climate where non-believers would be stoned or burned for questioning its authority. In our society, at least, that is no longer the case. So when faced with scrutiny of its founding principles, such as the 10 commandments, is the only remaining defence of religion that one who doesn't believe simply can't understand, and therefore it shouldn't be discussed?

Edited February 10, 2008 by BubberMiley

[myata]

For that, you'll have to first define "objective". Where's the point of view, from which my beliefs shall be discussed? Is it in you, or in me?

Don't mix the issues of violence with that of rational discussion. Violence can be met with equal force, until balance is established. It does not not mean that one point of view has been rationally defeated by another. Organized religon of certain denomination may go out of fashion, and die out. You'll have to wait very long time (much longer than your lifespan, any may very well be, forever) till all "irrational" from your point of view, beliefs, whether in aliens, Universal Goodness, or star power, move out of the world. Next question, of course, will be whether you'll want to live in that world.

[Guest American Woman]

But it's easy for a non-believer to determine what believers believe. One just has to go the source of their belief system--the bible. I'm not telling you what you believe. It is.

No, YOU are, when you claim that all religious people just believe exactly what the Bible says. If that were true, why would there be different denominations? Everyone would just believe everything the Bible says and take it totally at face value. As I've pointed out more than once, only the fundamentalists would have such an unwavering belief.

Religion has long relied on a climate where non-believers would be stoned or burned for questioning its authority. In our society, at least, that is no longer the case. So when faced with scrutiny of its founding principles, such as the 10 commandments, is the only remaining defence of religion that one who doesn't believe simply can't understand, and therefore it shouldn't be discussed?

I'd like to see a link to a source backing up the claim that all/the majority of non-believers throughout time have been burned or stoned, but what used to be is really irrelevant to this thread.

As for whether beliefs should be discussed with non-believers, I didn't say they shouldn't be. I said it's a lesson in futility to try to discuss it with non-believers who make claims as to what believers believe. It's unbelievable to me that you actually think you know what everyone of faith believes. So what it boils down to is that it's useless to discuss religion with the fundamentalist version of an athiest. There are plenty of people who don't believe who don't claim to have all the answers; who don't claim to be right; who don't claim to know what all believers believe/think/do.

Again, to say all believers say/do this, that, and the other thing, and then declare religion abusive because of beliefs that you are putting on all religions/religious people, is totally and completely ludicrous, not to mention uneducated, uninformed, and completely devoid of critical thought.

Edited February 10, 2008 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

No, YOU are, when you claim that all religious people just believe exactly what the Bible says. If that were true, why would there be different denominations? Everyone would just believe everything the Bible says and take it totally at face value. As I've pointed out more than once, only the fundamentalists would have such an unwavering belief.

ALl christian religions are based on the bible, so I think that is a fair document to begin with in determining what Christians believe. True, some have different determinations, but my position was simply based on the concept of hell. This is, as far as I am aware, a universal concept to christianity and even shows up in many other religions as well.

I'd like to see a link to a source backing up the claim that all/the majority of non-believers throughout time have been burned or stoned, but what used to be is really irrelevant to this thread.

I didn't say a majority. Most non-believers were likely intimidated into hiding their lack of faith anyway, so most would have avoided being burned at the stake. But one doesn't have to go very far to find numerous examples of such things happening. They're even happening now in Iraq, now that its people have tasted freedom and democracy.

As for whether beliefs should be discussed with non-believers, I didn't say they shouldn't be. I said it's a lesson in futility to try to discuss it with non-believers who make claims as to what believers believe. It's unbelievable to me that you actually think you know what everyone of faith believes.

Perhaps its unbelievable because I don't. I don't know where you've gotten this idea that I presume to know everything about everyone. All I said was I believe the church was founded on fear, intimidation, coercion and false promises. I also stated that the church has encouraged people to believe that by failing to follow its doctrine they will suffer eternal torture in hell. This is founded on the basic theories of the church. Are you saying that most christians don't believe in hell? I'd really like to know what you think, but all you've done is accuse me of thinking I already do.

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know where you've gotten this idea that I presume to know everything about everyone. All I said was I believe the church was founded on fear, intimidation, coercion and false promises. I also stated that the church has encouraged people to believe that by failing to follow its doctrine they will suffer eternal torture in hell. This is founded on the basic theories of the church. Are you saying that most christians don't believe in hell? I'd really like to know what you think, but all you've done is accuse me of thinking I already do.

I got the idea that you presume to know everything about everyone from this statement: it's easy for a non-believer to determine what believers believe. One just has to go the source of their belief system--the bible. I'm not telling you what you believe. It is. It sounds to me as if you were saying that all religions/religious people's beliefs are based literally on the Bible, and therefore you do know what they think. (If that's not what you were saying, I apologize).

Furthermore, one could argue that the church was founded on love, faith, comfort, and helping others, not fear, intimidation, coercion, and false promises. I grew up in the church and while I had a lot of the former, and had absolutely none of the latter.

Regarding hell, since you'd like to know what I believe, I don't believe in it. According to this poll, 82% of Christians believe in hell compared to 95% who believe in Heaven.

This is what you said in your opening post: ... instilling in children the belief that there will be eternal damnation for failing to meet an impossible standard (e.g.., thou shalt not covet) is [...] abusive. Do religious parents really feel good about tormenting their children with superstition?

It sounds to me as if you were saying religious people instill the fear of hell in their children. As I pointed out, not all Christians believe in hell, and of those 82%, I'd say it's a fair statement to say that they aren't all "instilling the belief of eternal damnation for failing to meet an impossible standard" and/or "tormenting their children with [with what you regard as] superstion." I'd bet the majority of them aren't instilling the fear of hell in their children. I feel I can come to that conclusion because according to the poll I cited, only 1% of Christians and 2% of non-Christians believe they are going to hell when they die, so the standards they are setting can't be "impossible standards" as your post claims, and since they don't believe they are going to hell, I doubt if they are telling their kids that they will.

What gets me is how this thread completely dismisses the good that faith/religion brings about. It's simply dportrayed as child abuse. What about a child who is really sick and finds comfort in God? That's hardly abuse. What about teens who have the opportunity to go on missions through the church to help those less fortunate? That's hardly abuse. What about the countless people who have been helped by people of faith? That's the exact opposite of abuse.

The title of this thread is "Religion is Child Abuse," and that is an uninformed, fundamentalist black-and-white view/statement.

Anyway, it hasn't been my intent to defend religion, I have no need/desire to do that. I only posted to point out the fundamentalist mentality that Hitchens et al have.

Edited February 10, 2008 by American Woman

[VIV3LAR3VOLUTION]

I'm a Christian. God is actually against "religion". Religion in only man made

rituals that ppl do.

God is about relation, not religion.

[cybercoma]

it's a lesson in futility to try to discuss religion with non-believers who claim to know what believers say and/or do.

Tell me, what do YOU believe? Do you believe there is a God, can you explain that God and tell us why you believe in it? Edited February 11, 2008 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Anyway, it hasn't been my intent to defend religion, I have no need/desire to do that. I only posted to point out the fundamentalist mentality that Hitchens et al have.

You don't want to defend religion because you're actually an atheist. You only enjoy the customs and traditions of the church you were brought up in, but you're picking and choosing which parts you want to believe in. If only 82% of Christians believe in hell, that's because 18% of them are making up the religion as they go. Either the Bible is the divinely inspired words of God, or it isn't. If it is, how can we pick and choose the parts that best suit us? If you don't believe in God, then that's fine... pick and choose away, use it as a guidance, but ignoring divinityj ust goes to show that a lot of people are religious without actually being theists. There should be a new category for those who enjoy the customs and traditions of religion but don't actually believe in God (which I think most moderates fall into), they're religious atheists.

[Frankie]

The Christain faith is not about doing good on earth to be rewarded in heaven, or living in fear and doing what he says so that you won't go to hell...The teachings of the Christain faith are simply about living the best life possible, and helping or telling others about how to live the best life possible. Not physically, but metally peaceful. The Bible says that God is always in control, but for the time being, satan owns the earth, because techinically, human kind chose it that way (through Adam and Eve). And ever since human kind chose him to be in charge, there will always be death, hatred, pain, wars, perversion and all that other bad stuff (untill EVERYONE chooses God), because the devil with do everything to the opposite of the will of God. What God wants is the whole earth to live in peace, and he teaches people how to live the best possible life, and peacefully, apart from the evils in the world, but at the same time, trying to help others to live how he tells people is the best way.

It doesn't matter whether you believe hell is a lake of fire, or a cold prison, or if there is no eternal damnation, or heaven is made of gold, or if your favorite things willl be in heaven, or you'll be up in the clouds....none of that even matters to your christianity, ultimitally, if you don't believe

that the main goal is about striving for peace with yourself, God, and everyone around you.

I am the Lord your God

You shall have no other gods before me

You shall not make for yourself an idol

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy

I simply have a hard time believing that a force that could create the universe would be so insecure.

I think you might be reading it wrong...

I am the Lord your God:

Reasonable thing for a God to say

You shall have no other gods before me:

Having created the universe, the science of it, and yourself, he's probably pretty confident about his ideal makeup for the best life to live on earth. Believing in another god might defeat the purpose of what he thinks is the best way, if you're listening to someone else's idea.

You shall not make for yourself an idol:

Sort of ties in with the one before. Also worshiping objects that might not be alive at all, or people that have the wrong idea of what life is about can have a negative effect on the idea of peace God decided to be the best one.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God:

This one probably is meant more for actual followers or teachers of God's teachings. As it would be troublesome for someone to misrepresent God or using his name for their own purposes and gains, as has been done in the past, and constantly today. More obviously than before there seems to be a problem with this, as more people seem to be complaining about God and how awful he is, by hearing what other people have to say about him, or by misinterpretation, representation or images potrayed by christain teachers or people claiming to know who God is, and giving the wrong impression. It might cause some people to get the wrong impression and turned off the whole idea. This is related to slander, and gossip, which are also said in the Bible not to be instigated, encouraged or taken part in.

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy:

Literally translated to "a time of rest". Which is something that Jews and Christains are guilty of misinterpreting, as it did not intend to mean a saturday (or to some sunday) of exceptional sacredness and a day to give to God. It was really a day for people, where he tells us to set aside a day of the week or a reasonably extended period of time where people can rest from work and their troubles as to not burn themselves out or get stressed out, and also to allow a time to slow down, and rethink of how he tells us is the best way to live, and not forgeting to practice it throughout the rest of the week. Put simply: A time to rest and time to think about God.

Just an interesting video of what some Christians(the one speaking in the video) think about the vast majority of Christians. The Christians most people hate and depise, are the ones that make up the majority of Christians in North America. The common image people have of Christianity is portrayed by people that are opposed to preachers like this guy, and who this guy opposes too:

(He has been banned from many churches)

Edited February 11, 2008 by Frankie

[Guest American Woman]

You don't want to defend religion because you're actually an atheist. You only enjoy the customs and traditions of the church you were brought up in, but you're picking and choosing which parts you want to believe in.

You couldn't be more wrong. This is why I have no desire to discuss my beliefs with "fundamentalist atheists." Why would I want to waste time refuting something, explaining something, that isn't even true?

If only 82% of Christians believe in hell, that's because 18% of them are making up the religion as they go. Either the Bible is the divinely inspired words of God, or it isn't. If it is, how can we pick and choose the parts that best suit us?

Again, this is why it's no use to discuss religion with a fundamentalist athiest. How can you determine what religion is or isn't if you aren't of faith yourself? The Bible was written by man. Many people of faith realize that and use it as a guidance, not as black and white or the direct word of God. So we don't "pick and choose what suits us," we use critical thought to come to our beliefs. If the Bible were in and of itself all that Christianity is about, as I already pointed out, there wouldn't be different denominations of faith. Furthermore, since the Bible contradicts itself, one must use critical thought when applying it to one's own beliefs. The most obvious example is "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek."

As for all Christians not believing in hell-- first they're condemned for believing in it, and now those who don't are criticized for not really being Christians; for "making up the religion as they go along." It doesn't get more ludicrous than that.

If you don't believe in God, then that's fine... pick and choose away, use it as a guidance, but ignoring divinityj ust goes to show that a lot of people are religious without actually being theists. There should be a new category for those who enjoy the customs and traditions of religion but don't actually believe in God (which I think most moderates fall into), they're religious atheists.

Thank you for telling me what I believe; for proving what I said earlier. It's always nice to find out from others what *I* do, or don't, believe.

Edited February 11, 2008 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Well isn't that convenient? I'm not a Christian, so you can't discuss Christianity with me. I was raised in a Christian family, so the parts of Christianity I understand, you pass off as not everyone's views. So, if we can't pin down what the belief is since everyone believes something different, clearly it's all a bunch of immaterial nonsense rather than being an infallible truth that some religious people claim it is.

Like I said there are a lot of people who are religious without being theist. There are religious people who enjoy the ceremonies and traditions, without actually believing there's an almighty creator watching over them ready to pass judgment after death. Not believing there is a real and true God entity (abstract concepts, such as, "God is all of nature," do not count because if God is everything then God really is nothing), would make a person an atheist.

If you're unwilling to explain what it is exactly that you believe, then there is no point in having any sort of discussion with you. You're only willing to admit that you don't believe in hell, without explaining what you do believe in. Well, I don't believe in Thor or Poseidon, nor do I believe in the Judeo Christian God, really it doesn't matter because that is the default position. If you're going to believe in something, such as God (which you haven't admitted to yet), then it would only make sense that you have a reason for believing in it.

If there is no logical reason for believing in such an entity, then yes it's child abuse for throwing that label on children. You're making children think they hold certain beliefs before they're even at an age where they can use reason to determine those beliefs. In North American we don't kill people of different beliefs (usually), but Muslim people are most certainly treated differently than Christians. In other parts of the world wars are fought between people that in all senses are the same, except for the religion they've been labeled with at birth. To pick your child's side in a war by default by labeling them Catholic or Protestant, Muslim or Jew is disgusting.

I've got no problem with the customs and traditions of religion, but it's this insistence on believing in things that fly in the face of science and reason that is truly damaging to children. Inquiry and skepticism is frowned upon, faith based belief is a virtue, this is the stuff from which closed-mindedness and wars are started.