Is taking children to church a form of child abuse?

[Monster Energy]

Serious question.

Kids don’t choose it. They don’t understand it. They can’t question it. But they’re still brought into a belief system before they even have the ability to think for themselves.

If this was any other kind of belief, people would probably have a problem with it. But when it’s religion, it gets called tradition or how you raise your kids.

So where’s the line?

Is it guidance

or shaping someone’s worldview before they’ve had a real choice?

Not saying religion is right or wrong.

Just asking

If a kid can’t say no is it really a choice?

 

[Fruehlingserwachen]

Deepends on how healthy the social structur of the church is, not on what they believe there.

[Willy Phallicus]

Is giving them a name and telling them they are a boy or girl child abuse?

[Monster Energy]

4 minutes ago, Fruehlingserwachen said:

Deepends on how healthy the social structur of the church is, not on what they believe there.

Beliefs can be harmful. We are talking about blind faith.

 

[Monster Energy]

4 minutes ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Is giving them a name and telling them they are a boy or girl child abuse?

That comparison doesn’t really hold up.

Giving a child a name or identifying them as a boy or girl is about basic social functioning and communication. It doesn’t require the child to adopt a complex belief system or accept claims about reality.

 

[Willy Phallicus]

4 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

That comparison doesn’t really hold up.

According to you anyway.

4 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

Giving a child a name or identifying them as a boy or girl is about basic social functioning and communication. It doesn’t require the child to adopt a complex belief system or accept claims about reality.

Children are born into the world completely helpless and ignorant.  If your premise is they have a bunch of stuff placed upon them before they know any better than telling them from birth that they are a boy named John is more than an apt comparison.  They dont have their own sense of identity yet before you gave them one.

Whataboutism aside, the first response to your inquiry pretty much answered your question.  Its not the church or religion that's bad (although it certainly can be), its what is actually being imparted through that structure.

[Monster Energy]

1 hour ago, Willy Phallicus said:

According to you anyway.

Children are born into the world completely helpless and ignorant.  If your premise is they have a bunch of stuff placed upon them before they know any better than telling them from birth that they are a boy named John is more than an apt comparison.  They dont have their own sense of identity yet before you gave them one.

Whataboutism aside, the first response to your inquiry pretty much answered your question.  Its not the church or religion that's bad (although it certainly can be), its what is actually being imparted through that structure.

Yeah, kids are shaped from the start. That’s unavoidable. Giving them a name or basic identity is part of helping them function in the world.

But beliefs aren’t the same thing.

A name doesn’t tell a child what is true about reality, life, or existence. It doesn’t ask for belief. It’s just practical.

There’s a difference between helping a child exist in the world and shaping how they interpret reality before they can think critically.

And that’s worth questioning.

 

[Willy Phallicus]

You asked if taking a child to church is abuse.

The answer is no.  Unless you want to make the case that telling the kid that santa claus and the tooth fairy are real when theyre too young to know better is demonstrably evil.

You could make the case if the church and its following was abusing the child in some way or intentionally programming them with some kind of hurtful or warped ideology.  At the holy communion age (roughly 7 years old) in the christian church though for example they preach the basics - the golden rule, god loves you and an example of one human being whom may be worth emulating.

[Hasson_Miah]

No. 

2 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

So where’s the line?

If going over the line makes them a cu** don't do it. That is the line. 

3 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

or shaping someone’s worldview before they’ve had a real choice?

This is fine, Humanity has been this way since 10,000BC. We had shamans, witches, Valhalla and all sorts of things and these are okay because when they get older they can decide to unlearn them, if they make that decision in the first place. If they're too far gone, cool.

 

3 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

If a kid can’t say no is it really a choice?

Remember at our core we are primates, and at the core of every primate is a primitive system and every animal and all organisms share a "common ancestry". What this means is kids are small and weak and frail and this is fine. What this also means is that small, weak and fragile organism don't get a say unless the bigger, stronger and more powerful one decides that they do. 

If a Church goer gives a 3 year old child the say to go Church or not then that person is a retard because you have awarded the privilege of strength to a being that didn't earn it. Strength in this case being the child making a strong verbal reasoning as to why they don't want to go church, if said Child did that and the Church goer could not refute what the child said then this means the child is intellectually stronger. If the parents fulfils that wish then great and they are not a retard. 

Choice is an illusion the mod can ban us anytime. 

[Hasson_Miah]

Omg I just seen your post about peadophiles and I seen user @Cred is your only follower and Cred is a nutcase LMAO. 

Your account has to be rage bait. 

[enchanted]

Everything is child abuse: Our food, our education system, our culture, the way we encourage our kids to out compete each other.  And then we wonder why they become destructive unhappy adults.

Not to mention that just by giving birth you are contributing to overall net suffering. Even relatively good lives have more suffering than pleasure. This makes reproduction unethical in a certain sense. 

Edited yesterday at 02:11 PM by enchanted

[Carl-Richard]

Them being born is then a form of abuse, taking them to school is a form of abuse, letting them watch TV, YouTube, the news, joining a youth political party. Nobody has any idea what they are doing when they are born and are just exposed to things outside their control. That's life.

Edited 14 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Joseph Maynor]

This is kind of a slippery slope because we can say lying to kids that Santa Claus exists is not right, but this kind of lying is seen to be innocent.  

[Leo Gura]

Of course

[Hojo]

@Monster Energy The beliefs dont matter, if there is no harm being done, a church can have a community for the child to grow into a human being.

A church can believe whatever the fuck it wants.

But what the church does that is important is a place for human being to come together and form a community to worship God.

Edited 9 hours ago by Hojo

[Natasha Tori Maru]

The only type of abuse this could fall under would be abuse of power. 

Age of consent, and consent in general, is central to this line of argument. 

Due to just how entrenched and permanent some beliefs can be - especially while we are still developing - it is almost a permanent psychological belief tattood in an unseen way. We see this again and again with users here even, who leave their religion, have some trips or spiritual breakthroughs - and remix/interpret it as Christ or Jesus (just an example). Thus returning to their past indoctrination. 

Physical circumcision performed on infants without consent (barbaric imo).

Only a circumcision for the mind.

Edited 7 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Hayato]

No.

[gettoefl]

Until you are of age, everything you do is imposed.

[Human Mint]

Making them pray, memorize the chants and making them assist church is an insult to the infant's intelligence.

And yes, kids need to be imposed rules so they don't die. But not everything imposed is equally harmful/healthy.

[Monster Energy]

On 2026-05-03 at 0:59 PM, Willy Phallicus said:

According to you anyway.

Children are born into the world completely helpless and ignorant.  If your premise is they have a bunch of stuff placed upon them before they know any better than telling them from birth that they are a boy named John is more than an apt comparison.  They dont have their own sense of identity yet before you gave them one.

Whataboutism aside, the first response to your inquiry pretty much answered your question.  Its not the church or religion that's bad (although it certainly can be), its what is actually being imparted through that structure.

You’re missing the deeper point.

This isn’t about whether church is “evil” or comparing it to Santa Claus. It’s about conditioning a child’s consciousness before they have any real ability to question what they’re being told.

Yes, kids are impressionable. That’s exactly why this matters. When you tell a child Santa is real, it’s temporary and understood later to be symbolic. It doesn’t shape their entire worldview or their understanding of reality in a lasting way.

Religion often does.

You’re not just telling a harmless story. You’re introducing ideas about reality, truth, authority, morality, and existence itself, and you’re doing it before the child can critically evaluate any of it.

Saying it’s just about love or the golden rule misses the point. You can teach kindness and empathy without attaching it to belief systems that are presented as unquestionable truth.