Atheists, residential schools and child abuse.

[WOTR]

I have been rolling over a question in my mind lately and am hoping that there are some staunch atheists here who believe that Christianity is a horrible disease... Somebody on Dawkins level.

I recall reading that he believed that to teach a child biblical beliefs was, in his opinion, the equivalent of child abuse. This got me around to thinking about residential schools in Canada, and the harm that we know they caused.  In addition to outright abuse, the stripping of language, culture and religion is now seen to have caused great suffering and multi-generational problems.  Now, this can, without a doubt, be placed squarely on both the government and religion.

However, given the idea that raising a child in a Christian tradition can be seen as child abuse, I wonder what a "good" atheist would do?  Is it permissible to teach Native stories but not bible stories?  Would it be encouraged to teach a traditional chicken dance, but not communion?  In short, would a school system run by professor Dawkins for native children be any less harmful than the one run by the church?

If we accept that stripping away culture at a young age can be harmful, is it wrong to assume that teaching the child of Christian parents to hate his / her parents beliefs and belittle them would be harmful to the child?  Would a school system under strict atheist guidance not have stripped a native child of their culture just as surly as the residential schools had?

Now, I know that the argument could be made that children would not have been pulled away forcibly from their families under an atheist regime- but let's suppose they were (times were surly different and it seems unfair to apply modern sensibilities to the past.)

I really am curious what a confirmed atheist thinks about the idea of refusing a child religion (particularly when it is intertwined with culture as it appears to have been in the native traditions.)  I will make an honest effort not to be overly argumentative...

***Relevant Dawkins quotes.
-Professor Richard Dawkins has claimed that forcing a religion on children without questioning its merits is as bad as 'child abuse'.
-The former Oxford professor... said last December that the mental torment inflicted by the religion’s teachings is worse in the long-term than any sexual abuse carried out by priest

[Eddie Coyle]

   I have quite a few of his books, but Dawkins can come across as an insufferable elitist. He has become as much a zealot as a born again or a Salafi. If an agnostic/bordeline atheist like me is put off by his antics "We're brights", than I can only imagine how people of faith see this guy. He's a humorless, pedantic asshole lacking Hitchens wit.

[albrecht]

Is it permissible to teach Native stories but not bible stories?  Would it be encouraged to teach a traditional chicken dance, but not communion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UV3kRV46Zs
This apparently native dance (I did not even know it was an Indian tradition but just a fun dance to do after beers at fairs or bb games) even helped turn Motley Crue singer from the dark side so why not teach it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGcdGNlKifY

[pyewacket]

Thank you, WOTR, for starting this thread. I was raised Catholic, left the church over 30 years ago, searched other faiths, became atheist for a couple of years and now consider myself agnostic. I was a big Hitchins fan. I hope that qualifies me for participation.

I agree that the native children were subject to abuse by stripping them of their culture, religion, and language. The Catholic church has a history of exploiting the most vunerable people in their "care".  The Magdaline Laundries- exploited the unwed mothers and unwanted girls. Religion gave the church the power to condemn them, work them in the form of penance, and pretty much sell their babies under the guise of adoption agencies. 

Belief systems are only as good as the integrity, intention, and intelligence of those perpetuating them. Not a good tract record for any of them. I do consider it a form of abuse and maybe even a partial cause of some mental breakdown in people.

Religion should be strictly separated from politics, but it's not. It has a disproportional influence on the people we elect. Religion is a source of division, suppression, ignorance, and conflict.

I view all religions, (I don't consider Buddhism a religion) in the same light or darkness. I can understand the need for it in primitive times, but it needed to adapt to modern development. It's outlived any real purpose. It has become dangerous in modern times. It was destructive enough of a force in past history, but now it could lead to destruction on a worldwide scale.

[analog kid]

As a "confirmed" atheist, I think Dawkins' point was to let the child come up with his own answers. I think Dawkins said that if the child eventually chose Christianity as their world view, on their own, he would be okay with that.

[Yorkshire pud]

Thank you, WOTR, for starting this thread. I was raised Catholic, left the church over 30 years ago, searched other faiths, became atheist for a couple of years and now consider myself agnostic. I was a big Hitchins fan. I hope that qualifies me for participation.

I agree that the native children were subject to abuse by stripping them of their culture, religion, and language. The Catholic church has a history of exploiting the most vunerable people in their "care".  The Magdaline Laundries- exploited the unwed mothers and unwanted girls. Religion gave the church the power to condemn them, work them in the form of penance, and pretty much sell their babies under the guise of adoption agencies. 

Belief systems are only as good as the integrity, intention, and intelligence of those perpetuating them. Not a good tract record for any of them. I do consider it a form of abuse and maybe even a partial cause of some mental breakdown in people.

Religion should be strictly separated from politics, but it's not. It has a disproportional influence on the people we elect. Religion is a source of division, suppression, ignorance, and conflict.

I view all religions, (I don't consider Buddhism a religion) in the same light or darkness. I can understand the need for it in primitive times, but it needed to adapt to modern development. It's outlived any real purpose. It has become dangerous in modern times. It was destructive enough of a force in past history, but now it could lead to destruction on a worldwide scale.

^^^ all this. Especially the bold sections. It's completely wrong an openly aethiest candidate couldn't stand as a political leader in either the US or UK.

[albrecht]

As a "confirmed" atheist, I think Dawkins' point was to let the child come up with his own answers. I think Dawkins said that if the child eventually chose Christianity as their world view, on their own, he would be okay with that.

I guess it becomes an issue of how far to go with this theory? Full on 'Lord of the Flies', unschooling, Summerhill, --> etc?

[WOTR]

This apparently native dance (I did not even know it was an Indian tradition but just a fun dance to do after beers at fairs or bb games) even helped turn Motley Crue singer from the dark side so why not teach it?

I know a couple of dancers.  One makes a fairly good living travelling the circuit in the spring through fall and have seen him dance a few times.  Absolutely excellent...

Not him- but a grass vs. chicken dance done by some pretty skilled dancers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHN5nueCg4U&index=17&list=PL30B87F7490C4FB8E

[pyewacket]

^^^ all this. Especially the bold sections. It's completely wrong an openly aethiest candidate couldn't stand as a political leader in either the US or UK.

It didn't take long for the bible and god to show up in the top 2 GOP contestants. Trump and Carson. UGH. Evil person that I am in the eyes of the religious- I'm more interested in the issues that impact me and everyone else in the country and couldn't care less about who is the bigger fan of their deity. 

When candidates, or anyone for that matter, invoke god, Jesus, or any religious text, - I think Pious Fraud. I thought that religion/spirituality was a personal matter, not something to be paraded around for one's own benefit.

For those unfamiliar with the term:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pious_fraud

[West of the Rockies]

I am agnostic.  I can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme being (though the evidence, such as it is, seems thin that there is a divine authority creating and guiding and judging).

Forced assimilation, such as through the taking of Native American children from their homes, appears destructive.  Choosing segregation, refusing to learn the language of a country to which one has immigrated, seems a poor choice, too.

No easy answers.