Random Reflexions

Time outs works really well for me. :)

I'm afraid if ur a Muslim, then whether u like it or not, u would have to think about doomsday, heaven, hell, devil, satan and "dhai jaalu" :)

Coz unlike Santhi Mariyambu n FoolhuDhiguHandi, those are not folk stories or imaginations.

N I don't think it's used for "terrorising" children. Isn't that over-exaggerating a bit?

I'm sure when u were younger, even u'd have heard people talking about those stuff; probably even more than ur children would hear those stuff. But did that prevent u from becoming what u r today? I don't think so. ;)

N I don't think it's only Maldivians with folklore characters like Santhi n Foolhu Dhigu Handi... even the "civilised" Americans n Europeans do have those things; how about the tooth fairy? Or even Santa Clause for crying out loud? Don't they take it too far than the uncilivised n irrational Maldivians?

I'm inclined to side with Nass here. I think there's a key distinction between extreme religious discipline and some harmless moralizing to children at a tender age when they are not supposed to grasp the concept of moral gray areas, that's missing in this post, Simon. The lack of such a differentiation makes an otherwise well-meaning post on this subject come across as some sort of anti-religious atheist propaganda.

Then again it's your blog and your opinion. Just saying that the religious bigot has a point this time.

Simon: I fully support your decision not to fill in your son's innocent mind with such horrifying concepts. We should stop filling in young minds with nonsense as though they are true. It's sad that such traumatizing is more systematically done elsewhere in the world including the US.

I agree a morality based on fear and reward is a warped morality, but not one based on any honest sense, or understanding, of goodness and badness. You will see such people saying without big brother there is no morality, meaning it's the big brother's categories of hell and heaven that are the reasons and motivations that sustain morality. But this is all wrong. Without any further argument, even only the sheer number of morally dignified atheists may convince oneself that god is not necessary for morality.

Nass: The difference between a harmless non-fiction and these horrifying categories are that the latter are taught as eternal and real truths.

And, please people stop this old argument of bringing in the 'civilized' world to back up fallaciously our claims. Even if Mr Great Jesus does a wrong, it is a wrong.

Hamza: It cannot be harmless moralizing. To take just one example, what more harmful can it be when almost an entire population are convinced by these categories and thus are opposed to otherwise morally fine acts?

Nass: Sorry I meant 'harmless fiction' not 'harmless non-fiction'.

I think Simon is refering to not traumatising a child with false demons at a stage when a child is vulnerable to accepting anything an adult would dish out. This doesn't have to be a pretext for yet another religious debate.

Religion of course can be taught by a parent, but not necessarily the "scary" parts to begin with. Once a child is old enough, the frighteneing bits could then be introduced.

Faith is not about scaring the shits out of little helpless kids. Think of the amount of diapers a parent would have to change.

M: There is no way this cannot be a debate on religion, if religious people insist their religions ask them to teach these categories and warped morality to young minds as eternal truths. Moreover, if you are shying away from focusing on religion, I'd say there is no reason religion should, simply by virtue of being religion, be spared from questioning or debate. We need more pretexts and contexts to question religion.

I think many of you are missing the point and I should've said it clearly out loud. M is right I am talking about very young minds which is why I mentioned my going-to-be 4 yo (not 14) son.

We teach children such concepts as "lying is bad" or that bad behaviour is punishable. But more often than not we force them to believe in another lie to instill that fear and teach them about the consequences of lying or bad behaviour. We tell them that terrible monsters will come and do such and such things to them when in reality no monster ever shows up regardless of whether the child behaves or not. And regarding hell and dhai jaalu - if you apply the same logic it makes no difference to a child whether you are talking about a make-believe monster or not.

So instead, I think we can use techniques that involve real punishments (and no not physical harm) such as grounding or revocation of a favourite toy. They see that the consequences of doing something bad (or even lying) is immediate and very real. For children such seemingly little punishments will seem almost capital and so it works.

Hamza, if I remove the words Biblical and heaven and hell this post will come across less as anti-religious. And this is not about religious discipline. Many parents use punishments from the Quran or Bible to discipline children in general. Many still use it to the extreme. Some children will tell adults that if they (the adults) don't do something they will go to hell and burn forever. Coming out of a 3 yo that to me sounds like a traumatized mind speaking out of fear.

Nass and Hamza (brrr): For me to think about doomsday and a child thinking and worrying about the same is quite different things. Sure, one day the child will learn about all that too and hopefully much later in their development. The fact is that there is no need to tell children (of young age) about the terrible things. The early years build the foundation for later adolescent and adult years.

Children might not grasp the concept of morality the same way they won't grasp the concept of the decimal number system. Get my drift?

True. But then I don't think these stories, fiction and non-fiction, should be left out completely, as long as you administer the fact that it's not traumatizing or necessarily applicable in real life..

Say you tell these horrifying stories as just that. Stories. If it is left out completely by the parents, it gives way to vulnerability in the child that other people can exploit.

And then there's one factor i'd want to encourage in a child.. imagination/creativity. True, these stories are dark, evil when you think about it, but they are also creative.

Maldivian folk and non-folk aside, take Roald Dahl's stories, (one author who affected me greatly when i was a little child) they are beautiful, funny, but also has a sinister edge to it. But I don't remember being traumatized by Mr. Willy Wonka, just enthralled.

These Maldivian folk and non-folk, as long as they're told as stories, and not used to discipline the child, don't you think it's better for the kids to be told by their parents than from other people, beacuse there is no way they won't hear it atleast once in their life, be it from a close relative, teacher, friend, or even a stranger.

ps cool kiddo you've got ^_^

I agree with Simon. I dont support telling children (young or not) not to do things because they will go to hell and bad things will happen to them (ie. dhajjaalu will come) Children shouldnt be taught not to do bad things only because they will go to hell, they should be taught the bad consequences of doing these things and the harm that cud cause people.

Actually I find the religious way of telling people not to do things because they will go to hell (or because bad things will happen to them) quite selfish and individualistic. Because essentially you are avoiding doing something only because it does not serve your OWN needs (ie, i cud go to hell) and not because harm could come out of it affecting people around you. For instance you might be told not to steal because you get faafa (hence, increasing yr chances of going to hell), but really shouldnt you be explaining that stealing causes harm and loss to other people? Shouldnt you be taught to put other people's interests before your own? You are only supposed to be good and not do anything bad so that you go to heaven, and not because being a decent human being maintains good relations, is not harmful and does not effect the cohesiveness of a society. So I totally agree with Simon that children should be taught a morality based on altruism, equality and respect.

And if you are religious and want your children to follow the principles of religion its better to teach them to do it out of respect and understanding rather than fear. so i think its better to tell them the reasons and implications behind the prohibitions, and take the hellfire and damnation stories out of it.

Simon: The everlasting nature of the effects religious categories is greatly probably to do with our insistence on children that these are real and true categories, and their certainty that that is so. (The mother in Romulus: My Father comes to mind.) But of course, regardless of the truth, even the nature of these categories would highly contribute to negatively influence young minds. For instance, knowing full well that horror movies are not real, we, nevertheless, are sometimes scared to see them. Yet, if they were seen to be real and experience we ourselves would undergo, the effect would be greater. So, there surely would be a difference between telling horrifying stories clarifying that they are just stories and telling horrifying things making it clear that they are real and true.

The defence to protect young minds from such categories is going to be weak and probably unacceptable to religious people should the defence assumes these categories are true and if the religious people insist their religions ask to teach these categories. ‘If religion asks to teach them, there surely cannot be any negative effects!’ So, the need to focus on the truth of these categories themselves…

Simon and co.: What I meant was that the post came off as a categorical dismissal of teaching the black and white moral system inherent in major religions today. I'm not saying i love eating live puppies and sodomizing 3 year olds.

Like I said before, this is your blog and your opinion Simon but just to get in the spirit of things I'd like to point out that there is a basic assumption being made throughout the whole post that religion is a fairytale that all children will inevitably grow out of. This is the grand narrative from the perspective of an atheist. However, it is not necessarily true.

Yes altruism seems much nobler in comparison to the more base instinct of doing something in the expectation of a reward. Yet isn't there debate the warm and fuzzy feeling or sense of belonging to a community is a reward in itself after performing such "selfless" acts.

As someone else has pointed out, children can benefit from learning about the existence of evil and boogie-men. It would do them better to learn at a young age not to talk to strangers and the such. I guess the kind of religious discipline I would take exception to is preaching hellfire to a child in a manner that would scare him/her. Even in such a case, it wouldn't necessarily cause the child any lasting trauma.

There are loads of promises made about life that the child will never witness or be disappointed in in later life. Brushing your teeth and eating your veggies doesn't guarantee that a child will not contract a debilitating disease and die. Obeying your parents and placing your trust in them doesn't mean that either one of them might break that trust in the most horrible way, scarring the child for life. I know I'm rambling here but whoever eventually gets my point, I'd like to tell them that the pearly gates await them.

Well well well... interesting and a controversial issue Simon.

No it is not a controversial issue. It is very straight forward. I think all of you are missing the point here, Hamza has a valid and reasonable point though. Much research has been done on the cognitive abilities of young children.

Here we have to go in to the various theories defining and explaining cognitive develoment in children. There may be different versions of these, from the famous Eriksons to the one and only Freud.Piaget is the very famous when it comes to cognitive development.Carl rogers is another one. Acording to piaget the level of competence of a child is and cannot be measured by the age but the stage they are in.

Here is a link to Piages stages of development. I am sorry simon. I really dont want to fill your blog with links but i cant help it.In order to explain this concept i think i have to give links and articles here. Again you may be aware of these anyway.

http://facultyweb.cortland.edu/andersmd/piaget/PIAGET.HTMl

What these teachings about hell and heaven and the rest does is (how and the why behind doing that does matter????), if constantly relegated to these young minds during different stages of development is, that they learn to be afraid, which they dont need at a stage when they are 4 years old .Or do they? They learn to be afraid of the unknown. Do they have to? FEAR is not what a 4 year old needs to develop in to a moral being.

How ever..on the other hand..

Harrypotter is a SCARY book. My little one when at the same age of your son read the first harry potter book and she stopped reading it after a few chapters. I asked why and i got the answer instantly. It was too scary. However she finished reading the book a year later and has enjoyed all the books of JK rowling so far. What happened here i think is that the child learned to outgrow fear from her experiences which is also as important. The child learnt that it can no longer hurt and it is ok and it is only a fiction. Only a story.

The questioning of your son by asking " naraka e eee maa salhi thanetha? " is where the answer lies and how you respond to it is even more important.

If supported and empathy, warmth, caring is maintained in a family environment, i dont find any wrong with a person telling about hell or heaven to a child in one instant. How ever, the circumstance and how and when and why the story is told will and can make a difference in the developmental aspects of life (my humble opinion only).

Another scenario.

In responding to that question from your son, how you respond to it can make a lot of difference. Is it right to tell them that hell and heaven does not exist?

No.because he will be hearing a lot about it while he is growing and he will become very confused. *my dad told me there is no hell or heaven. he must be lying. or are they ALL lying*

Instead i think it is much better to tell them the truth. In a fantasy type of story.

Another scenario.

A death has occured in a family of a very young child. How are we going to tell them where they went? heaven or hell? or just died and is going to rot under ground?

An excellent study done on death concepts among children is :

C. Randy Cotton, Lillian M. Range (1990). Children's Death Concepts: Relationship to Cognitive Functioning, Age, Experience With Death, Fear of Death, and Hopelessness, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 2, Pages 123-127.

The study found that the children who stated that their "grandpa has gone to be with jesus" having a lesser understanding of death. " A religious belief in afterlife may thus have contributed to these childrens misunderstanding about the deaths cause or inevitability."

""So you can live in heaven with god" may not be helpful to children who have experince with death."

And this is the most important finding from them. I quote,

"Fear of death was also related to the development of overall death concepts in these children. This result is consistent with the existential argument that fear can interfere with a childs development of an understanding of death. "

Bringing up children is like telling a story. It will follow the way you want it to be told (even with the societal influences)untill a certain stage of their development. After that you have no control of the story and the story will be played by the child the way they want it.

Infact it is a child game.

Take care and give loads of love to the little ones. That is what they need.

Thanks Simon, for clearing it up.

Dear "Support simon", I have no problem bringing in religion or any other aspect of life into a debate on anything. Meanwhile why not make a masala by putting in the Linux vs Windows Vista and Coca Cola vs Pepsi debates into this too. I sure by the viture of whatever the virtue is by its own virtue that no topic can be independent and thus intertwined wih any other topic one can drag into it. And we can do it in a multilingual manner too.

M: However different Simon's intention here may be, I still find no way how this could not also be a debate on religions. It would be a cop-out and shying away to not focus on religions. However greatly 'Coca Cola vs Pepsi' debate is related to the topic may be, that does not make the debate's connection to religions any smaller.

most people in maldives still believe that jinni is a real thing, and not a figment of their imaginations. so it's mentioned in the quran, but doesn't mean the concept of jinn and the concept of jinni held by maldivians is the same thing. the fiery demon from the quran is not the handi with the horn on her feet, certainly not the red libaas lady who visits during the night. the problem is certainly exacerbated by the fact that treating via fanditha is held as supreme to modern medicine.

If you think you are an atheist and at the same time not sure what to do about your hereditary religion (in confuse state on belief identity), and then what are you going to answer your child’s innocent questions. Then of course you need very unique help. Because people like you are rare.

As exasperated as we all tend to get when discussing religion or politics (the "cooler" kids anyway) there's no possible means of separating them from any discussion of society and social trends. So, put the sarcasm away M. As much as I love a little dry humor here and there, there's a time and a place for it.

In retrospect, I do admit I jumped at what I perceived to be yet another careless attack on religion by Male's growing "atheist elite" when I saw this post. What I should have emphasized is the carelessness in establishing connections between phenomena which are not necessarily related. I can't really remember what stage Piaget deduced to be the one at which children can grasp the concept of altruism (although that's besides the point), however what uglyduckling has pointed out and others have ignored in the sensational mexican standoff that is we-are-too-cool-for-school vs. The Koran Thumpers is that what Simon has pointed out is a personal gripe, therefore it's not even close to an academic discussion and there is no need to debate it as such (this reprimand is for me as well).

There have been no studies (as far as I know) done on the negative effects of cultural and religious education on children in Male' and therefore no reason to believe that we are breeding serial killers and child molesters by the dozens. Personally, I was never able to fully appreciate the "horrific" imagery of the Koranic version of hell. As a child I'd never really experienced scalding, snakebites or even a "biruveri hoholha" for that matter, so I admit that I can't fully understand what sort of discipline that is being talked about here.

However, once again, this appears to me to be another chapter in Simon's Guide to Changing Maldivian Mentality, therefore I'd like to re-state my perennial objection to this particular movement. The established cultural norms in Male' cannot be changed overnight. By refusing your children cultural and religious education, you might as well just force-feed them a bottle of bleach, slit their wrists and throw them in a bear cage (with crocodiles).

Children are not equipped to handle the social pressures of being a non-conformist. Kids who can't read Arabic or know how to perform a prayer (at the requisite age) are still the objects of ridicule at school and elsewhere. Yes, we can always get all righteously indignant and rant about our rights and crap but really people, idealism died in the 60s for a reason. We need to study things as they are before pompously dictating how they should be. Just some friendly advice for Simon and his followers.

hamza: You have some good points there. Even adults, let alone children, will not openly practically be able to be non-conformist (with regard to at least religion) in our country. But your statement that 'we need to study things as they are before pompously dictating how they should be' is not very clear to me. Yet, from the context it seems you mean that before expressing normative guidelines, we need to study the situation at hand. In that sense, it is a good advice. But if you mean that normative ethics is not possible without descriptive ethics or how things are, then I doubt it. Quite independently of how things may be in a society, it seems, it is possible, and a legitimate (and non-pompous) thing to talk about how things ought to be. This is not to say these normative ethical theories necessarily would be totally right.

Also, I don’t think a piece or pieces of writings need to be taken as an attempt to change a particular society in an overnight. Such writings can be steps toward that direction, and as such should be commended. The fact that an ‘overnight’ change cannot be brought upon does not make such attempts any less legitimate either.

It is not clear that a refusal to introduce horrifying concepts to children is at all going to let them come down on effects as worse as the effects you tried to depict by your examples. But this is an empirical disagreement. Yet, I know your point is – and I agree it is something we should consider – that a kid without religious concepts is going to face problems in a society especially like ours. It need not thus be as much a case of not teaching religious concepts at all as it is one about not teaching those concepts in ways that will inculcate fear and other possible psychological problems. So, if it is at all possible to teach religious concepts without possible psychological effects, then your worry about effects of non-conformism should be minimized. Also, Simon, to clarify some of our misunderstandings, has clarified that that is what his comment is about. I have protested, though, that it’s going to be a weak case if religions insist these concepts literary need to be taught to young minds.

While your statement that there is no reason to assume we are breeding ‘serial killers’ and ‘child molesters’ appears as a straw-man reading of the issue at hand, I will still treat its intention as valid to respond. While there is no scientific study on the possible negative effects that horrifying concepts can have on children of the Maldives, I do not think the prudential attitude is to assume there is none, although it maybe bad science to assume there are negative effects. Also this lack does not mean there is no reason to assume there are no negative effects. Firstly, we may know of individual cases where people are psychologically affected on these terrifying concepts. Secondly, scientific studies done elsewhere in the world can be looked at too. If Piaget’s study is automatically taken to be relevant to the Maldivian kids, other non-Maldivian studies maybe looked at too.

Also, as it appears there is an understanding by you that this article appears yet another attempt by ‘atheist elite’, I should like to ask you if you can expand more on your allegation.

I think the onus of filling out the gaps rests with those of you who support the above article. I don't think the horrors of hell can actually scare children that much. Someone said something about scary movies and the safety blanket of knowing they're all make-believe(I'm too lazy to scroll up) and my understanding of those punishment and condemnation stories leads me to believe that they mean diddly-squat to a 3 year old. I think Simon's little story illustrates my point. You could tell a toddler that if they don't ask their parents to buy them toys the market will collapse, and destitution, famine and civil war will ensue but that holds no immediate danger to them. However, if someone would kindly inform me what the ill-defined terror-mongering said above is I'd be only too happy to keep shooting my mouth off. Is it exploiting a child's irrational fears by describing their inevitable occurrence in graphic detail in hell? Is it holding a child underwater for touching themselves (Oh crazy Catholics! How I adore you)?

Hamza: I agree before rationally concluding that there are psychological problems (such as, say, of the type of childhood sexual abuse) that religious horrifying concepts can have on children, we need a study to back it up. I hope of those of us who have a background in psychology will say something.

My support not to teach religious concepts was primarily based on an epistemological basis, although it turned out the aim of the original article is somewhat different.

Yet, without any study we can be sure of at least the short term effects of scary concepts on young minds. Again, I agree their effects will also depend on age too. As you say a child with cognitive underdevelopment probably will not have much psychological problem hearing the 'propositions' of these concepts.

You have the onus of defending your allegation I identified.

I was just pointing out a common thread in a lot of Simon's posts, which I'm sure he'd acknowledge. Nothing personal. I guess my "allegation" (strong word there buddy, I don't see any crime in progress. Just making that clear) stemmed from the fact that the post talks less about the dangers of generally scaring young children into acquiescence but rather starts from a premise of questioning religious teachings and expands on that particular topic. But, like I said at the beginning, this is Simon's blog and he's free to say what he thinks. I don't have the right to order him to change his font size, much rather his views on social issues. Once more, I can't stress enough that there is no academic debate going on here. I for one lack the professional expertise to make any substantial comment on the issue at hand so I'd rather not posture as if I am. I was just pointing out some obvious fallacies that any layman would've picked up on.

p.s. : Don't my twist my words. "Cognitive underdevelopment"? That's a whole new level of PC-speak for "retard" isn't it? Wouldn't a child with normal cognitive development have problems grasping certain concepts at certain ages as well? My one year doing an introductory course in Psychology means that I can't defend myself against anything anyone says in psych-babble. So be nice and don't run roughshod over things I say if you really don't know what you're talking about either.

Hamza: The phrase is not meant to be a psychological technical term. I know it has the connotation of being 'retard'. But it was used to refer to the general lack of development of children's cognitive faculties. 'Underdevelopment' is not thus altogether the right word. You were meaning of children's inability to grasp the 'propositions' (used technically as in philosophy, more specifically logic) of what we say when you were talking by taking the market collapsing and civil war, etc. In philosophy they talk about 'cognitive meaningfulness' of statments. That was where I was coming from. Hope you are happy with that now.

Will say more on your 'allegation' later.

I was trying to know this about this latest 'attempt' of doing something (that thing you have in mind) by Simon in the context of your mentioning the 'growing' 'atheist elite'. Are there atheists in the Maldives? If there are, are they growing? What do you mean by 'elite'?

If you have any evidence on that please let me know. (I'm writing something which will much benefit from such evidence.)

God created human beings with their characteristic strengths and weaknesses, and, in his omniscience, knew full well whether they would obey his laws and go to heaven or be punished in hell. In view of this, the deck is obviously stacked against those who were created and born into less than ideal circumstances from which to attain to heaven. Logic dictates that a child raised by a mother addicted to crack cocaine in the inner-city is placed in unfair moral competition with a child born into a comfortable, upper-middle-class family in the suburbs. The point here is that an infinite sojourn in hell is likely for those not psychologically, culturally, or environmentally blessed. Within this simplistic understanding, it seems that god arbitrarily wills that some people will burn forever yet mysteriously rewards others with an eternity of joy in heaven.

Children are taught that they can escape god's wrath through the exercise of free will in obeying the laws of god . Thus, a contradiction develops. God comes to be seen simultaneously as both a punishing as well as a loving being . Exercising one's free will becomes loaded emotionally as both the key to salvation and as a source of anxiety over one's ultimate destiny. The result of adherence to these ideas could potentially result in both cognitive and affective dissonance for these children that may not be resolved well into adulthood.

The remarkable contradiction is that god is typically portrayed as all-good, all-just, all-merciful, all-loving, and that all creatures, especially human beings, are his children. Yet he, in his omnipotence, induces and condones the anguish that people experience in hell. Remarkably, once a person arrives in hell no escape is possible. The idea of atoning for mistakes, seeking forgiveness, and obtaining mercy is rendered meaningless in the context of an eternal hell.

The intrinsic logic of this view is that this god knowingly and deliberately punishes some of his disobedient children by tormenting them eternally and unceasingly in a grand torture chamber of his own creation and design. This punishment can be compared to the abuse of children that is observed in current society. Child abuse is typically defined as the physical or mental harm, or threat of harm, to a child by a parent or guardian. The conception of god in question is precisely one of a child abuser of cosmic proportions, threatening a sentence of eternal suffering on anything other than submission and obedience. Hell is the place where the sentence is implemented. From the abuse perspective, it is little wonder that god is perceived by children with considerable anxiety as both the benevolent "lover in heaven" and as the insidious "angry villain" . This also explains why children have an "unusual amount of anxiety" regarding their deity. Coles (1990) reported that children the world over express both love and fear of god in their prayers.

Coles (1990) also reported that many children "stumble along, often making mistakes, and that as a result they worry sometimes about God's opinion of them, worry that they may well be judged harshly by Him" (p. 114). In this regard, a harsh judgment from god is a serious matter indeed. Such anxiety, when coupled with guilt, can even lead to a swing to Satanism in some adolescents . An important question concerns how many children ever free themselves of this conception by the time they reach adulthood.

Child abuse is now a major social issue and the incredible irony is that the deity of childhood seems to be guilty of the same crime. The typical denial of child abuse is just as evident in this case. In this same vein, there is a kind of taboo against representing god's punishing behavior as the abuse that it so obviously is. It is possible that the mere mention of it may arouse emotions ranging from ire to alarm or amusement, depending on the degree to which this primitive conception has remained unexamined and undeveloped.

The logic of children is simple (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969), and incapable of taking into account the complexities and ambiguities of theology and metaphysics. Therein lies the mechanics of how the potential damage is done. The danger for children is that they are urged to internalize, worship, and hold this entity in awe. From this perspective, it would seem that the cognitive, emotional, and developmental effects of being devoted to such a cruel, duplicitous, and heartless being deserves examination in the interest of mental health and wellness.

Indeed, many children perceive god as the best person in the world . What happens to children who take this god into their hearts to be worshipped, admired, loved, adored, and held in awe as the absolute figure of authority and goodness? Many available studies demonstrate the effects of modeling on human behavior (e.g., Bandura, 1971). Bandura confirmed that images can also serve as models. He also showed how associational patterns are important in modeling, and that those with whom one has regular interactions provide the kinds of behaviors that are learned most thoroughly. God is the very entity that children are taught to interact with in the form of prayer. Children are taught to count on this god when the chips are down, to turn to him when no one else can be trusted. They are taught not only that he is always there with them, but that he is also everywhere. This is a powerful image indeed.

In view of this analysis, what becomes internalized, modeled, and imitated can be a rigidly authoritative creature filled with contradictions, who can be horribly cruel to some and completely loving and gentle to others; who can mercilessly condemn some to eternal suffering and be profoundly forgiving and merciful to others. Because of his random assignments of psychological, environmental, and cultural differences to his children, god's actions seem to take place arbitrarily, with no apparent rhyme or reason.

What happens to the hearts and minds of children when they are occupied by a creator god who is loving while at the same time is potentially psychologically and physically abusing? Recall that children associate this being with right and wrong behavior . It may well be that modeling and then imitating the various images associated with this entity reinforces similarly cruel, contradictory behaviors. Such a conception can be introjected and may form a part of the person's identity . Identification with pathological mental constructs can be both subtle and unhealthy (Hanna, 1991b; Puhakka & Hanna, 1988).

It would seem that a thorough, authentic, and honest examination of the fundamental theological and philosophical issues that address these images is essential for proper development. This examination should guide revisions for religious education necessary to prevent the potential damage that may accompany modeling behavior after a cruel and contradictory god.

Because of the dichotomous, authoritative nature of god, development in this area of life may be stymied to the point where a person could grow to adulthood retaining this primitive conception. In this scenario, the groundwork is laid for similarly contradictory behavior and attitudes in the self. Not surprisingly, we see this behavior in everyday life. We have noticed how some business persons can ruthlessly cheat each other and yet consider themselves to be good, honest, moral individuals. We see politicians who engage in alarmingly corrupt practices while simultaneously espousing high moral and ethical standards. We see religious preachers glibly preaching the word of God while harboring a wide variety of hypocritical behaviors, values, and attitudes.

These beliefs could conceivably result in problems with authority, contradictory behaviors, and control. Extreme examples of these problems may at least partially explain the actions of David Koresh in Waco, Texas, or Jim Jones in British Guiana, both of whom led numerous people to suicide in the name of religion. A more common example might be people who rationalize violent behaviors by citing love as their rationale. In the name of love, they batter, dominate, and punish others in their effort to maintain authority and control.

In internalizing or modeling such a god, we lay a groundwork that too easily accommodates hostility and conflict. Compassion and love deteriorate into a fickle, conditional, and superficial affection, tendered to others when it serves one's manipulative purposes. Intimacy with god becomes an anxiety-ridden enterprise, always with the fearful risk that punishment will result (Coles, 1990; Heller, 1986).

The choice of the atheist in rejecting any deity at all is quite understandable in this light, although this alternative is by no means an ideal solution. The radical feminist rejection of this deity is interesting in that it calls for an exorcism or dislodging of the entire flawed conception to achieve a sense of spiritual freedom and a more complete understanding.

There are other effects of such a flawed conception. Existential writers from Sartre (1953) to Yalom (1980) have observed that freedom itself is a source of great anxiety in European and American societies. This anxiety becomes quite understandable when one considers the idea of growing up with the feeling that the improper exercise of freedom can lead one to eternal suffering. A fundamental sense of hope about life and living could also be discouraged through such a belief.

Faith in this god is obviously not the sole source of these behaviors, but because god is represented at such an ontological level, faith may serve as a powerful reinforcement of these contradictory behaviors and attitudes. Because children are instructed to take this god into their hearts, it would seem that this reinforcement exists at a very deep level of the psyche, beyond what is normally consciously experienced. This may be evident in the emotional eruptions that take place when people's religious beliefs are overtly questioned or criticized.

A central issue is one of values. How does this internalized god and his system of punishment affect what we hold to be meaningful, worthy, or meritorious? A possible answer is that our values become influenced to the degree that this abusive entity has been internalized and subsequently modeled or introjected. This process may still be in operation regardless of whether a person is actively religious in adulthood.

Developmentally, this analysis rests comfortably within the framework of Loevinger's (1976,1985; also see Gilligan, 1982; Kegan, 1982) approach to ego development. At lower stages of development, a person thinks in simple dichotomies and in terms of conformity and disobedience. At higher stages, conflict is coped with or integrated, and ambiguous ideas are tolerated easily and effortlessly without the compulsive need for immediate resolution. The internalized conception of a punishing, abusive god may be to some degree responsible for hindering progression to higher stages of development. This might occur by preempting the need for development by providing a simplistic authoritarian scheme of the world. Such a scheme could further hinder development by making progression through higher stages an action subject to disapproval and punishment by what is thought to be the greatest being in existence.

Hell serves no useful purpose to humanity nor to an enlightened, benevolent approach to spirituality. In view of our current understanding of human development, primitive conceptions such as hell and a duplicitous god have outlived whatever utility they may have once possessed. The time has come to put an end to eternal suffering.

Clearly religious teachings at a young age has positive benefits as described in this article.A google will take you to this article.

"Teaching Children Religion: Can Children Truly Grasp Ideas About God and the Universe?"

Arm chair philosophising is going on without a clear premis just for the sake of arguement, I too want to join the fun with a similar garbled information/conceptual bombardment.

'In modern psychology, man is treated and studied within the purview of the Western materialist worldview. Thus, he is seen and studied fundamentally as a material being. The spiritual entity or component in him is either less recognized or simply dismissed or dispelled completely. This dismissal of the spiritual component in man became necessary because its presence cannot be established with the standards of rigid empiricism, which came to hold sway over the behavioral and social sciences-the craze for scientific precision and accuracy. In a more apt sense this is called scientism-the mad worship of science.
The natural and logical consequence of methodology adopted in psychology and its epistemological basis is reductionism. Reductionism can be seen in two dimensions: first, as the source of knowledge and the object of study. In the social and behavioral sciences, man and the human communities are the object of study. With the adoption of logical positivism (hypothetical-deductive methodology) as the means of studying man and his social world, the two have been reduced to the level of pure material bodies that can be studied within the confines of control and observation mechanisms. . As part of the overall product of modernity, the Western worldview is predominantly secular-characterized by atheism, agnosticism, and humanism. This resulted in a mechanistic view of man and his social world, and ultimately reduces and dehumanizes him and his society. This is why modern developmental psychology limits the study of human development strictly within the confined context of natural forces and influences.

The Islamic worldview is diametrically opposed to this Western worldview. In the Islamic worldview, man and everything in the universe are a creation of Allah. He created the universe alone and solely sustains and governs it. Man's life has a divine and transcendental purpose because he shall be resurrected in a Divine world (the Hereafter) and shall be made to account for his life in this world. In the Islamic view, man is a creature made up of two components-matter and spirit. He should strive for the betterment of both in equal and balanced ways and manners. The Islamic Law (the Shari'ah), which governs man's life, has been Divinely formulated so that both components in man are catered to in a balanced way. A Muslim's life and by extension the life of the Muslim community is governed and patterned along this worldview, just as the Western community is governed by its worldview.
Therefore,(undoubtedly) there are sharp differences between the Islamic and Western patterns of life. Similarly, and also necessarily, the patterns and processes of development (especially the moral, emotional, and social aspects of it) must be fundamentally and essentially different. Thus, it is also correct to say that a theoretical model of studying child development that has been conceived, formulated, experimented on, and applied in the West cannot necessarily be applicable for the same purpose in the Muslim world. The fundamental differences in worldview between the two worlds, which subsequently necessitate differences in child-rearing practices between the two cultures, vindicates this assertion.'

jedi-x: That seems to be a rather simplistic understanding of science, its applicability, societies, and cultures. All Western and Eastern, Christian and Muslims, societies are not as clearly differentiated on all aspects as some people may assume. Not all values, cultures, and norms, are as uniquely distinct to these regions. At least, it is not clear it is so unique and distinct that a scientific study done on children of a particular religion is not applicable, or at least not illuminating and helpful, for another region. Plus, religions are not unique to 'Western' or 'Eastern' regions always. Societies are more complex than a simple reading of them as Islamic civilization vs. Western civilization. I think a similar 'binary division' of societies seems to be the premise of 'clash of civilisation' thesis too.

This is not about clashes between civilizations but the similarities in them.

Christianity and Islam talks about hell and heaven in te same pretext.

Hell is for bad people while heaven is for the good. Children are children no matter from which part of the world they come from.

I agree with commonities and a .

People in the world over reject the idea that tensions between the Muslim world and the West arise mainly from differences in religion and culture. A survey of over 28,000 respondents in twenty-seven countries, conducted for the BBC World Service by GlobeScan and the Program on international
Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that
52 percent of people believe "political power and interests"
play a much larger role. A majority of those surveyed also
claimed that INTOLERANT MINORITIES on both sides are responsible for conflicts, not fundamental differences in culture. Furthermore, the survey, which was reported by the
BBC on February 19, 2007, found that while 28 percent
of respondents think that violent conflict is inevitable, 56
percent believe that'common ground can be found."

Respondents were asked their religious affiliation and
the degree to which their religion influenced how they
approach political and social issues. No consistent pattern
emerged to differentiate attitudes based on religious
belief. Likewise, the idea that violent conflict was inevitable between Islam and the West was rejected by Muslims, non Muslims , and Westerners alike.

You may read the survey results from here.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/317.php?nid=&id=&pnt=317&lb=hmpg1

I need some rest for me eyes and me soul.

lol: This might be what some of us deserve for making the same mistake that major religions do. That is, tying to force-feed something to people that should be a personal experience (or never-ending inner conflict, take your pick). I cannot defend my fellow atheists for there really is not or should not be any such thing as a fellowship of "us". Doubtless, the rejection of religious teachings or failure to accept them must have been a common phenomenon ages before "atheism" (as either the "educated rationalists" or the "religious community" would define it) became fashionable and Western hegemony became undeniable along with the (fair or unfair? you decide) association of all things Western and oddly enough to a lesser extent, European, with some undifferentiated notion of Christianity. (Bunching atheism and Christianity together, although ironic, seems inevitable when atheism is thought to spring from the very mouth of hell, i.e. the West, as well).

Although the colorful language and tone of your comment is, in my opinion, undeserved, as I'm sure Simon has nothing but good intentions (neutral at the least :P) I'd be willing to echo the sentiment, albeit in a transmuted form, that the propagandizing has to stop. Social problems need closer scrutiny. It's healthy to question instead of making conclusions and that's where the religious community needs to relinquish it's stronghold on cultural and social norms. However, atheism doesn't have to become the successor to this throne either. We need more honesty as well (about our standpoints, our preconceptions and where we're coming from in general) and that will hopefully make our inquiry seem less like propaganda.

what in the world is going on?

Assalaamu'alaikum warahmathullah wabarakaathuhu

"They intend to put out the Light of Allah (i.e. the religion of Islam, this Quran, and Prophet Muhammad Salallaahu 'alayhi wasallam ) with their mouths. But ALLAH WILL COMPLETE HIS LIGHT EVEN THOUGH THE DISBELIEVERS HATE (it)."
(Surah as-Saff 61:8)

"And they (disbelievers) plotted, and Allah planned too. AND ALLAH IS THE BEST OF THE PLANNERS."
(Surah Aal-e-Imraan 3:54)

"And Allah will establish and make apparent the truth by His Words, however much the Mujrimoon (criminals, disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, etc.) may hate it."
(Surah Yunus 10:82)

Read this COMPLETELY pls..... http://www.adhaalathu.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=53&show=1#comments
Although it is based on politics, certain very important points are noted....

people cant have a good laugh these days. Why did you remove my laugh Simon. It is in no way deragatory nor abusive or unrespectful.

Simon: How does/would your kid fare/survive at school? They ARE going to be pretty harsh on him if he makes such comments... in public?

Anyway, best of luck to the kiddo!

tg,
I apologize for removing your laugh. You can post a new laugh-comment and I'll keep it. :)

Jaa: My son is saying that because that's his usual question to new things. Being the boy he is he wants to know if that particular thing (whatever it is) is cool or not. Also by the time he reaches 1st grade hopefully he'll be studying in a secular country.

apology accepted. but the hype and moment has gone for the laugh.

i hope everything works out fine for your family. It would be nice if you all could come here. You know where. You have been here before.

Simons,

I quote what you said:

"Children, by their very nature, will never listen and obey parents all the time and every time. That's one defining trait of children. "

"But a morality based on good deeds, altruism and empathy and balanced judgment and equality - it is far better and rewarding."

Altruism and obedience are not consistent.What if one wants absolute obedience and the other measures issues based on ultruism which may lead to disobediences as well.

Secondly,as Muslims we are obliged to believe in Jinns,angels and Satan.Period.There is no interface between us and those unseen matters.

To understand Islamic view on Jinn,devils or Satan,pls view
www.adduonline.com/articles/imaan.htm

Adduonline,

This post has nothing to do with the belief in jinn or satan etc. It is about how parents can abuse these entities (regardless of their existence) to control children by exploiting fear.

Hey Adduonline,
you cannot oblige someone to believe in something. To believe is to believe without any obligation or compelling of any sort of coercion.

I think one of the key issues simon's post brings to light is that religion is driven by fear rather than genuine understanding in Maldives.
Like children unknowingly shy away from doing things when threatened by hell and foolhudhigu handi, maldivians shy away from questioning the very existence of god because it is blasphemy and blasphemy leads to hell

I have learnt, to state a few, from this post and from the comments that:
there is a heck of a lot of words for the same thing;
a mole hill can be a mountain;
words can be interpreted as action;
hype can be about anything, literally;
parenting is very individualistic;
most religions and philosophies are open source;
people are people;
simon's son wants to be cool;
simon wants the best he can offer for his kids;
and most importantly the son wants to know how concepts new to him are perceived and received by the general public around him!

Simon: He says "salhi thaneh" eh? ehe pretty hip! hm.. wonder why he doesnt say "molhu" or "reethi" or the likes. Perhaps, and most probably, his boyish attempt to sound cool. well.. Keep it up. Having grown up eldest amongst two dozens of kids and as a parent, i know, not believe but know, that you are a better parent than many. Thank you for sharing.

...jes a fw things.
materialize: i guess its more lyk u being enjoying the materialistic moments of life.

We often refuse to think, there is a hereafter to be experience n the consequences, koz we tend to see how the what people arround does (very viral).

Western education, doesn't necessarily should categorise us as part of their culture. I'd love to die as my forefathers did.

In simple words, your mind has systematically corrupted (No offence). I respect everyone's views.