Religion and Morality

I remember reading a story by a Christian woman who had an ADHD son. At one point, she said that she'd read that ADHD kids were more often abused, and she could believe it, because if it weren't for her religion, she'd have abused her son.
As an atheist, I was deeply offended. If that's really true of her, I'm glad for her son's sake that she's a Christian. But I don't need to be afraid that some diety will punish me in the afterlife to avoid hurting a child. All I need is an awareness of how my actions will affect that child. The thought of breaking that child's trust, betraying that child and the pain it would cause, is enough to make me think I shouldn't abuse that child.
There's this stereotype among many Christians (and probably people of other religions) that you must be religious (preferably the same religion as them) to be a caring person. I could point at the religious people who do terrible things - the sexually abusive priests, the people who ran the Inquisition, etc - but many people claim those aren't really doing what God wants. Instead, I point to the people who don't sin, who in fact do good, but only because they want to be in heaven instead of hell. How moral is it really, to act good only for a reward?
If I knew for a fact that I'd go to hell if I didn't torture and kill a child, I would hate the God who set that rule, and feel that the moral thing would be to disobey Him. (I can't promise I would disobey him, but my idea of an ideal person certainly would.) But in the Bible, God allegedly told someone to kill his favorite son, and the man was about to carry it out when God said the equivalent of 'just kidding'. God was 'testing this man's faith', apparently, and the lesson is to trust that God knows best even if you really don't like what he's telling you to do. I'm not willing to give anyone that kind of power over me. (Certainly not the ordinary human beings who claim to speak for God.) I don't think someone so easily led into disobeying their own beliefs is a good person.
And those people who avoid doing something they want to do only because they think they'll get punished - they often don't really avoid doing it. They do it in secret, or they do borderline things which they excuse by emphasizing the differences (or simply deny). The first is not feasible if you really believe you've been told what to do by an omniscient being, but the second option is very likely to be done by devout believers who obey only because of heaven and hell.
So maybe that ADHD boy was being abused after all. Not by being hit or made to do sexual acts, but by his mother's looks, her comments, her rules, her body language. If a child has been taught, by their parents' behavior, that they are bad and don't really belong in their family, then they have been abused - even if such teaching is not deliberate. And you can't avoid that abuse just by thinking you'll be punished for it. You avoid it by cherishing your child, by working with yourself to avoid feeling so angry with them, by learning to enjoy being with your child.
Sadly, it's considered normal for parents to dislike spending time with their children. My father is excited when he has time off work to look after us. My mother misses us if she goes away to a conference without us. But recently I saw a joke in which a 6 year old boy who had two older brothers was asked what his mother did all day since he entered school, and said 'cartwheels' (turning cartwheels out of joy, because she doesn't have to look after him all day anymore). Children are considered a burden, worthwhile mainly because we grow up into 'real' people and can look after our parents in their old age. Parents say 'I wish you have a child just like you someday, so you know what it's like' and mean it as a curse instead of a blessing.

NT children 'becoming human', unlike autistics

I just sent the following e-mail to CBC, regarding a radio interview on the same topic as this article.

"I was shocked this morning to hear a man on the radio, in discussing early diagnosis of autism, say that parents should watch for their child 'developing into a human being'. Why is such prejudiced language acceptable. Firstly, it is prejudiced towards children. You cannot become what you already are, so your guest speaker was basically saying children aren't human - they must become human. Secondly, he was saying that not only are autistic children not human, they, unlike normal chidren, will never become human. When David Aheniquew (sp?) said the Nazis were doing a good thing by trying to get rid of Jews, everyone was shocked and appalled - if I recall, he may even have been charged with hate crimes. Why are children and autistic people not afforded similar respect? Since most people think being human means being worthy of respect, calling any human being non-human is not only biologically innaccurate but prejudiced. Yet your guest speaker said that autistics and children aren't human, and the interviewer didn't even comment.On the subject of early diagnosis, ideally I'd support it but with the state of our society right now, I say just leave them be. I'm glad my own autism wasn't diagnosed until I was 15 - by then, I was able to self-advocate and no one could force me to try to become someone I'm not (that's what autism treatment is - like aversion therapy for gays)."

Viewing Disabled People as Childlike

Amanda Baggs has recently posted a thing about Bernard Rimland's death. John Best commented with a bunch of nasty comments, one of which was telling Camille that she should giver her child treatment for mercury poisoning 'so that it will be out of diapers someday'. As well as the reference to an autistic child (does Camille even have a child? I can't remember. If so, how would he know if xe is in diapers or not?) as it, this comment also shows the view that being in diapers all your life is a horrible thing.
Disabled adults are often compared to children, and disabled children to younger children than they are. Often this comparison seems meant to devalue disabled people. I've seen people say the same nasty things about newborns (claiming that there's nothing going on in their minds) as they do about severely disabled people. I've seen people describe disabled people as 'perpetual children' in a way that implies that being a perpetual child makes you less worthwhile.
Often disabled people react by insisting they are not like children. But they don't ask why it is that they are being compared to children, or why this should be a bad thing. What's wrong with being childlike? Why are disabled people so often compared to children?
It seems to me that the commonality is dependence. Disabled people and children need more assistance than nondisabled adults. Disabled people and children have more difficulty contributing in the strictly defined way that our society seems to value.
A lot of people seem to view children as being worthwhile mostly because they will be adults someday. People talk about children as 'the future'. It's like children are simply adults-to-be, and what worth there is to childhood itself is mostly in how it prepares you for adulthood. If you consider children's worth to be primarily that they'll be adults sometime, and the care given to them primarily as investing into our future, then a 'perpetual child' would be waste. A perpetual child would be receiving without giving, a burden on others. That is precisely how disabled people are viewed.
But I think there is worth in children besides who they'll be. I find worth in who a child is, right now. Children contribute, as children, things that, though they are devalued by society, are very worthwhile.